Angela Watkinson: If she will a statement on the opportunities and procedures for volunteering in relation to hosting the 2012 Olympics.

Mark Prisk: To return to the excellent point made by the hon. Member for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping), who will be in charge? For example, if there was a proposal to build an eco-town in Salford, the Homes and Communities Agency established by the Government might say, "This is a very good idea", but the IPC might say, "No, this is a poor idea." Given how the Bill is drafted, is not the truth of the matter that in the end the Minister will be pulling the strings from behind the scenes?

Anne McIntosh: Does the right hon. Lady accept that part of the rural economy revolves around people visiting areas like the north Yorkshire moors, the Yorkshire dales, the Scottish borders and beautiful, remote and isolated parts of the United Kingdom? Does she accept that when a line of pylons is to be built that will be needed for the new wind farms announced by the Government today, people should have the right and the time to have their views considered before such decisions are taken?

Hazel Blears: I was happy to give way to the right hon. Gentleman. I stress that the decision-making process will be independent. The independent planning commission will be independent and robust and include experts who are renowned in their fields. That will reassure people that the decisions are being made properly.
	It is interesting to note that as many people say that Ministers should make the decisions as those who say that they should not. Some people claim that the planning commission will be too independent rather than not independent enough, so I look forward to that clash of ideas in the House. Some people claim that ministerial decisions—the way in which matters are tackled now—are somehow more accountable. However, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, Ministers make quasi-judicial decisions in a legal framework that can be challenged only in the courts, not by Parliament. I therefore believe that the process for the national policy statements will give us more, not less accountability.

Eric Pickles: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman was paying attention when I said that the national policy statements will go a long way towards dealing with the problem, which is why we support that good innovation.
	In his first few days, the Prime Minister made much of his desire to strengthen democracy, yet this proposal, which is a centralising move that takes decision making and the right to oppose a project away from local people, is a move in the opposite direction. The Prime Minister also made clear his commitment to the green belt. Over the summer he was keen to say:
	"I assure the House that we will continue robustly to protect the land designated as green belt." —[ Official Report, 11 July 2007; Vol. 462, c. 1450.]
	At a lobby briefing, the Prime Minister's spokesman clarified what was meant by that, saying:
	"Green belt land will stay as green belt land. Yes, we can give you that assurance that we will not build on green belt land. We are not proposing any changes to our very robust protection of the green belt."
	Yet the Bill gives the IPC powers to reclassify green belt land; so much for a firm commitment. This one did not even make it to yuletide.

Eric Pickles: Clearly, conservation areas must be protected. I thank my hon. Friend for giving me an opportunity to clear my throat. I am recovering from a very bad cold, but it is a pleasure to be here.  [Interruption.] Thank you.  [Interruption.] I feel the love coming across from the Labour Benches.
	If we were to end up with a situation where merely the pegging out of some ropes could create a criminal offence, that would be a clunking fist too far in terms of our legal system.
	Clauses 47 and 133 entrench the existing powers of the state to enter private property without warrant. Does that not pre-empt and make a mockery of the reviews of powers of entry introduced by the Prime Minister in his October speech on liberty? As a legacy of the past Governments of all colours, 266 laws already allow state officials to enter people's houses. Is it not time that we started to rein back on those powers rather than gold-plate them?
	We are pleased that the Government have dropped their discredited plans for a planning gain supplement. The Secretary of State has our support in wanting to reform the section 106 system on planning gain. If used correctly, it would help to energise and regenerate towns and cities throughout the country, but it will not have the support and confidence of local people and local businesses if the money generated is sucked away to a regional pot and is used to the benefit of people hundreds of miles away. Will she make a commitment that all revenue from the community infrastructure levy will be retained by local councils so that local people can receive the benefits of new building? It should not just be a slush fund to feed Government friends across the country. It must be about community improvements delivered locally, not a stealth tax.
	That brings me to two constitutional issues on which I seek clarification. Clause 164 will allow both the unelected regional development agencies and the unelected infrastructure planning commission to become charging authorities and to levy this new planning tax. This is the first time that a quango has been given tax-raising powers. Clause 169 makes it a criminal offence, not a civil one, if one cannot or will not pay. Is this not the modern equivalent of ship money: additional taxation imposed by an unelected body on pain of criminal punishment? A cursory glance at the murals on the walls between this Chamber and the other place would testify why our forebears were willing to lay down their lives to defend their principles. The provision in the Bill corrodes the cast-iron constitutional principle in the Bill of Rights of freedom from taxation by royal prerogative. As ship money goes, this is a modest flotilla, but it is a worrying trend. It is a further step down the road of local management of services, rather than the democratic delivery of services.

Stewart Hosie: There might be slightly more worrying problem than the one that the hon. Gentleman has identified of the Scottish Government having responsibility for these matters. On the commission's role in relation to oil and gas pipelines, part 5 would apply under clause 187(2), and in certain circumstances, that unelected commission might be able to make decisions on oil and gas pipelines in Scotland, usurping the original, existing planning authorities in Scotland and the Scottish Government. I read that as a more worrying concern than the one that he has identified.

Keith Hill: Whatever else one might say about the Bill, no one can challenge its scope and ambition. It ranges, in its potential application, from airport terminals to conservatories, from nuclear power stations and wind farms to microgenerators. To that extent, it reflects the scope of the White Paper on which it is based, which ranged even more explicitly from global issues of climate change to the minutiae of permitted development—referred to glancingly in clause 155, which I mention now to justify dwelling on it at some length later in my remarks.
	Before I reach that point, I wish to say a few words about the bigger issues in the Bill, including the proposals for an infrastructure planning commission and national policy statements. First and foremost, I welcome the Bill, and there is far more to welcome than to regret. I welcome the NPS and the new single planning regime for major infrastructure projects. It is sensible to unify the legislation affecting such projects so that once they have the go-ahead under development consent arrangement, they will not need further consents or approvals under other legislation. That is a straightforward rationalisation and modernisation.
	I also welcome the proposals for timetabling the decision-making process in major infrastructure projects and the proposals for improving the quality of applications by developers. As the statistics show, flawed applications are a powerful cause of delay in such projects. I also admire the new and apparently tough enforcement regime for major projects. I hope that it will provide a model and inspiration for local enforcement, which is, as we all know, the Cinderella of the local planning system. On the subject of local planning, I welcome the community infrastructure levy, which is making a somewhat surprise appearance in the Bill. It is not a million miles from the concept of planning contributions in section 46 of that seminal measure, the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004—I shall leave hon. Members to guess which Planning Minister took it through the House. It just goes to show that you cannot keep a good idea down. It is a good idea that the local community should benefit from planning gain. That community bears the brunt of the development, so it makes sense that it should be the primary beneficiaries. Section 106 has served its purpose, but it did not apply across the board to all developments, its operation was often arbitrary and ad hoc, and its mysteries—for obvious reasons—were better understood by developers than by local authorities, which were often taken to the cleaners as a consequence. By contrast, the community infrastructure levy will strengthen the position of local authorities, because it will be a standard, transparent and across-the-board charge that applies also to minor developments. From the developer's viewpoint, it will have the advantage of conferring certainty about costs as they approach development opportunities.
	While I am still on the subject of the local scene, let me finally welcome the proposal for local member review bodies and the proposed article 4 changes, about which I will say a little more in due course. Local member review bodies seem an excellent idea. There is no doubt but that the present local appeals system imposes an unreasonable burden on the inspectorate. At the same time, the proposal responds to a real public concern about the accountability of local planning officers under the delegated powers system. We must make sure that works.
	After so many welcomes, there is almost bound to be a "but"—and there is. But first, I am certainly not alone in welcoming the proposal for national policy statements. I was pleased to hear that welcome expressed on the other side of the House. The welcome has been general, and rightly so, for two reasons. First, the element of parliamentary scrutiny in the drawing up of the national policy statements, however that is managed, will serve to democratise the planning process on big national projects. Secondly, because Parliament will have expressed its will on behalf of the people, the national policy statements system must have the effect of speeding up inquiries on those projects.
	It is ludicrous and unacceptable that a number of local inspectors' inquiries should have become forums for debate about national policy. It is ludicrous and unacceptable that those inquiries have been protracted for months, if not years, by endless representations on the desirability or otherwise of proposed developments in principle. In future, under the national policy statements system, Parliament will decide whether we are going to have new nuclear reactors, and more airports, roads and railways. If the usual suspects disagree, instead of abusing the planning process, they can fight a general election on their policies. They can put up or shut up: that is the democratic way.
	But—I said that there was a "but"—is has also been our democratic way to have democratically elected politicians, in the form of Ministers, make the final decision on the biggest and most contentious planning issues. I wonder how we have got to the independent infrastructure planning commission. I have looked at Kate Barker's final report on land-use planning. Her third most important reason for advocating such an independent body is the slowness of Ministers in making planning decisions.
	Members will be aware that the House approves a statutory timetable within which Ministers and officials at the Department for Communities and Local Government must issue their decision on planning appeals and called-in planning applications. The latest statistics, for 2006-07, published in the planning inspectorate's annual report, show that Parliament's target was narrowly missed—at 99.5 per cent—due to not meeting the deadline in one case out of 100. My right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench deserve the warm congratulations of the House on that splendid record.
	That reinforces the rather unsubstantial basis for the recommendation for an independent commission. Nevertheless, we are where we are and some will argue that there is a kind of democratic deficit. I do not want to overstate this point, because my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was absolutely right when she argued that Planning Ministers, in their quasi-judicial capacity, have been accountable to the courts, rather than Parliament, in making their decisions. However, the truth is that, within the law, all decisions involve a balance of judgments. I believe that it is better that that balance of judgment be exercised by those who are accountable to the public. If that is right, it has implications for the balance of the relationship between the national policy statements and the infrastructure planning commission. I was somewhat reassured by my right hon. Friend's remarks. The national policy statements must be as comprehensive and as well grounded in consultation as possible. It is absolutely essential that Parliament, via its scrutiny function, forms the judgment in the national policy statements on the balance among considerations of sustainability, climate change and economics in major infrastructure projects. In particular, national policy statements submitted to Parliament must identify the location of developments as specifically as possible. It would be quite unacceptable for the IPC unilaterally to make such critical decisions. The Government and Parliament must shoulder that responsibility.
	Part of a national policy statement must be formed on the basis of thorough consultation with local communities, and clause 5(5) allows that to be done. In the relationship between NPSs and the IPC, the purpose should be to maximise what is democratically accountable and to minimise what is not—to maximise the national policy statement and minimise the IPC.
	I turn rapidly from the national to the local, and from the general to the very particular. Clause 155 provides for the removal of the right to compensation when notice has been given of the withdrawal of planning permission. In line with the Government's response to the consultation on permitted development rights for householders, which was published at the same time as the Bill, the clause paves the way for a new power for local authorities to restrict, when necessary, permitted development rights through the use of article 4 directions, without recourse to the Secretary of State. I congratulate Ministers on the subtlety with which they have dealt with permitted development. In principle, the Government are surely right to wish to reduce both the bureaucracy faced by householders making minor extensions to their homes, and the burden of casework on hard-pressed local planners. The proposed dimensions and limits for extensions look sensible. People in my constituency in Lambeth, south London, will especially welcome the new rules on setting back loft extensions from the eaves, and the ban on raised terraces, verandas and balconies.
	More importantly, the Government have recognised that the question of permitted development poses itself very differently in different locations. In most parts of the country, householder permitted development might well be just what it says: householders legitimately creating more space in homes that will continue to be used as single dwelling houses. However, in my borough of Lambeth—and extensively throughout London as a whole—much of that type of development is carried out by not householders, but commercial developers, who are abusing permitted development as a platform for the over-intensive subdivision of family houses into flats.

Tom Brake: I start by thanking the Secretary of State, who is no longer in her place, for briefing me and my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Andrew Stunell) on the Bill a week or so ago. Her charm offensive was successful to the extent that it better informed us of the Government's views on the Bill, but it was not entirely successful, as we have not chosen to join her in her big tent.
	When I considered the Bill, my starting point was to find out what it should achieve. In its briefing, the Wildlife Trusts set out fairly succinctly what the Bill should do. First, it should
	"facilitate public confidence in decisions by allowing stakeholders and the public, including local communities, to have their say and views reflected."
	The Bill should ensure that we "value the natural environment" and that there are "rigorous environmental assessments" of the proposals. One could perhaps add to that a suggestion made by the Royal Institute of British Architects: the need for the Bill to ensure that we effectively entrench good design standards. We should not finish our consideration without making sure that the Bill provides an efficient mechanism for delivering critical national infrastructure.
	A Bill's strength often lies in its ability to command wide-ranging support from a cross-section of organisations, and I am afraid that this Bill fails that test. Liberal Democrats recognise the need to improve the way in which large planning applications are dealt with, as the current system is not working as effectively as it could. However, the key applications are often being delayed by ministerial decisions rather than by those taken in any other quarter. We are worried that the Bill will stop local communities and local authorities challenging major projects and raising legitimate concerns. The way in which the Government have treated what they call campaign responses—responses to the consultation from individuals associated with campaign groups such as the Campaign to Protect Rural England, which responded to the White Paper—and the way in which those so-called campaign responses have been, to some extent, discounted, or at least set aside from the other responses, is a worrying indicator of how the infrastructure planning commission might deal with local communities' concerns. What decision was taken about the weighting to be given to different responses to the consultation?
	Those are not just our concerns—they have been expressed by several organisations. For instance, the Local Government Association is worried that the new arrangements for projects of national significance will undermine local democracy. Equally, the Royal Town Planning Institute has highlighted the fact that public service agreement 21, which covers building cohesive and empowered active communities, will be endangered by the proposals as they relate to the IPC.
	Did the Government consider not going for this "big bang" approach to planning and instead reconsidering the changes proposed and adopted in 2005? Does the Minister think that the changes have had the necessary time to embed, and might not they be a better way of tackling the problem than making a completely new proposal in the shape of the IPC? Liberal Democrats will seek to table amendments if, in our view, the IPC is not suitably accountable and legitimate—and, perhaps most critically, if there is no evidence that it will be able to reject applications. That will be a key determinant of whether it is worth the money that the Government are to invest in it.
	Another matter that we will want to consider carefully is the amount of money that the Government are giving to Planning Aid, which, under the new arrangements, will play a significant role in ensuring that communities can have their views heard and be effectively represented. The Secretary of State confirmed that £1.5 million has been allocated to Planning Aid, and we will shortly meet its representatives to discuss whether that is a suitable sum for the job that may be allocated to it. In the Government's view, some £300 million per annum will be saved as a result of the Bill. That is welcome, but what percentage of that will relate to the private sector? It is interesting to see how much the Government expect the private sector to benefit from this and, on the other hand, how much they are willing to invest in Planning Aid to ensure that local communities have their views effectively represented. I hope that the Minister accepts that there are sincerely held concerns about the infrastructure planning commission.
	The IPC is the first major proposal of the Bill; the second is that of national policy statements. There is more consensus about the need for the latter, and the principle behind them—that we should not repeat arguments about national policy in relation to a local application—is sound. It would be much more effective if agreement were reached following detailed consultation and parliamentary involvement instead of arguments being repeated at each inquiry.
	There are, however, many questions about what will be in the national policy statements. For instance, National Grid has some very clear ideas about the role of the market in meeting UK energy requirements, the importance of securing energy supply and the Government's view on electromagnetic fields. I hope that the Minister will give more detail about the content of the national policy statements.
	Business supports the national policy statements. Certainly, the CBI has welcomed them, but, inevitably, the welcomes are not unanimous. The briefing hon. Members have received from the National Farmers Union raises a critical point, which others have made. There is some concern about, and a need for clarification on, how the national policy statements relate to existing planning policy. Will they overrule in their entirety planning policies on the green belt, or on playing fields, for example, or will they have to be taken into account in an appropriate fashion? I hope that the Minister will be able to provide more clarity on that point.
	I hope that the Minister will clarify how parliamentary scrutiny of national policy statements will work, although I understand the Government's position. They may want to be discreet in the expression of their views about how Parliament should consider the process, as that is a matter for Parliament alone, even if the Government have a private view about it. If the Government are unable to tell us how they think parliamentary scrutiny should be performed, I hope that the Minister will tell us what discussions have been held with the Procedure Committee. When a proposal along these lines was last proposed, the Committee insisted that it could not proceed within the time scales being sought. I hope that the Minister will explain whether those discussions have borne fruit, and whether parliamentary scrutiny could be subject to the same challenges.
	Assuming the Bill becomes an Act, the time scales the Government have in mind for implementing the national policy statements are unclear. When would the Minister expect the statements to be in place? There is an indication that some of the existing statements—those relating to aviation, for example—may be adopted as national policy statements. I hope that the Minister will explain how that will happen. Clearly, the process used for national policy statements will be different from that adopted for the aviation paper. Simply adopting that process would not be acceptable to this House or, indeed, to anyone outside it. We require some clarity on that point.
	The third major proposal in the Bill is the community infrastructure levy, whereby the Government propose to ensure that developers and others contribute a significant sum to the cost of local services and that it is not simply borne by local authorities. I am sure that hon. Members regularly receive representations from their local authorities or local residents worried about the scale of development and the relatively small contributions that are made, if any are made at all, towards local schools, GP practices and other facilities.
	The proposal is sound, but it is not universally supported. The business community is split on the subject. Although the British Property Federation believes that the proposal commands the support of the business community, the property industry and local government, it does not command the support of the British Chambers of Commerce. Housing associations believe that section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 has been critical in ensuring that affordable housing is provided. If the community infrastructure levy is to replace section 106, I hope that the Minister will confirm how he can be certain that affordable housing will continue to be provided in certain developments. We will need reassurance. There is a broad agreement in all parties about the need to provide affordable housing, but if one of the key ways of delivering it is to be removed by the Bill, the Minister will need to justify it.
	In my opening remarks, I said that the strength of many Bills is their ability to command overwhelming support. The Bill fails that test. Another test is whether a Bill answers more questions than it poses, but this Bill raises a large number of questions about its main proposals. So far, at least, there is no evidence that the Government will square the circle and speed up planning applications for infrastructure in the way that all hon. Members want while allowing local communities and local authorities to have their say. The infrastructure planning commission risks becoming the "in place of consultation" commission. We will fight the Government's centralising tendencies and will fight for local communities' right to have their views heard. We will vote against Second Reading today.

John Gummer: I refer the House to the Register of Members' Interests and to the fact that I am vice-president of the Town and Country Planning Association and an honorary fellow of the Royal Institute of British Architects.
	I hope that the Government will not mind if I deal with practicalities. There is no doubt that the Bill is in itself a declaration of failure; only two and a half years ago, we were told that the planning Bill coming before the House would solve most of the problems that this Bill is designed to solve. It is also true that even the Bill's most robust supporter would have to admit that the Government are better at the rhetoric than the delivery, and that joined-down government is not a quality that they have managed to discover in their 10 years so far. One thus has to look into these things in great detail in respect of their practicality, not least from this particular Department. In the not too distant past, it managed to tell Ipswich that it was going to be a unitary authority, but then told it, immediately after it had spent £1 million in preparing for it, that it was not going to be a unitary authority after all. The same Ministers took a totally different decision. That being the case, this Department needs to be looked at extremely carefully when it comes to the practical results of the particular legislation that it puts forward.
	Let me take the precise example of nuclear power. I have two nuclear power stations in my constituency: one is in the process of being closed down and decommissioned, and the other is perhaps the most successful in the United Kingdom. If there were to be a new nuclear power programme, I know that my constituency would be a prime target for it—and I happen myself to be a supporter of having a new nuclear power station at Sizewell.
	One can perfectly well take the generality of the decision in Parliament that we accept nuclear power. It is right that a particular part of the Bill should provide for that and the quality of life commission, which I chaired, was one of the earliest advocates of doing so. There is something in common here and I shall point out the several other things that the Government have taken from that earlier vision. They are very interesting, and perhaps more importantly they illustrate the bits that they have not taken from it. Having agreed the general principle, though, someone has to apply it to Sizewell. It is at that point that local support must be gathered.
	After all, what is the planning system other than a means of reconciling a whole range of different interests—the national interest, the local interest, the particular interest? Reconciling those is crucial. Very often, people want to do different things on the same site and the planning system enables society to make that decision. It is always a second best, of course, because although the law of property should be that one can do what one likes with one's own land, we decide that that is not acceptable because there are community interests that have to be reconciled with the particular interests—so we reconcile them.
	The trouble with the Bill is that, although it deals more sensibly with the idea of taking the general decisions, it makes much worse the problem of how we deal with the local community. When we had the Sizewell B inquiry, I was able to present the interests of my constituents in front of a judge. The judge was not there as an expert. Indeed, I dislike this concept of planning experts—people who are supposed to be experts in energy, experts in this, experts in that, experts in the other. That is not what my constituents want.
	My constituents want somebody whom they believe to be an expert in judgment who will listen to the points that they raise and decide whether, in addition to having a nuclear power station, which is decided here in Parliament, they must have a new road or whether, as in the last case, there has to be an insistence on 80 per cent. of the heavy goods coming in by sea. It makes a lot of difference to people if they do not have 10,000 lorries passing in front of their houses.
	Those are the issues that my constituents will want to present, but they will not want to present them to some Government placeman who happens to be an expert in this, that and the other. They want to feel that they can appear in front of a judge who can make the decision himself. That is also true in relation to planning inspectors. At least a planning inspectorate is a professional body of people.
	We want professionals, not placemen. That is the difference, and that is why we believe it necessary to have the first part of the proposals but then to accept that there should be a local inquiry on the particularities of the local impact of a national decision. Of course we would not have to discuss the issue of nuclear power again—in Suffolk as in Somerset, or in Bedfordshire as in Devon. That would be decided by the House from the planning guidance produced by the Government, but what happens locally is crucial to every local community. Those communities must feel that the process is proper.
	I submit to the House that a quango wandering around the country—no doubt chaired by Dame Deirdre Hutton, or another person of that kind who chairs everything around here—would be a set of placepeople, if I am to be politically correct. That is what they would be and that is what the public would see them as.

Paul Truswell: A number of Members throughout the House have already commented on the challenge posed by the planning process. There is an increasing polarisation between engaging the community, maintaining sustainable communities and tackling major challenges such as climate change on the one hand, and the promotion of enterprise, employment and wealth on the other. I believe that the Bill gets the balance substantially wrong.
	I appreciate, and would not seek to minimise, the difficult balancing act that Ministers must perform in the face of lobbying from business and the one-sided findings of the Barker review of land use planning. Like many Members, I am closely involved in supporting the communities in my constituency in expressing their view on local planning applications and their impact on the quality of their lives, and trying to ensure that developments are sustainable and address issues of climate change. My main starting point is the extent to which the Bill deals with community participation. When my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was performing her piece at the Dispatch Box, I was taken back a few years to a similar debate on public involvement relating to the abolition of community health councils and their replacement with patients forums, which are themselves to be superseded.
	In the context of public involvement, I recognise that the Bill will have no great impact on the overwhelming proportion of local planning applications decided under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. If I have any criticism in that respect, it is that the Bill provides no means of promoting and enhancing community participation in respect of local planning applications. In the past, like my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew), I have advocated a qualified third-party right of appeal to give communities an opportunity to challenge significant local planning decisions made by councils on applications requiring an environmental impact statement.
	The Bill relates principally to major infrastructure proposals, or MIPs. I have therefore tried to view it from the perspective of how it might operate in respect of MIPs with a potential impact on the communities that I represent. For example, Conservative and Liberal Democrat-controlled Leeds city council is considering options for major waste disposal facilities that may include the building of a huge incinerator. We also have on our doorstep Leeds Bradford airport, recently privatised by the Tory-Liberal Democrat coalition. Those were the very people who condemned the passenger projections in the aviation White Paper, but then sold it off—and with it, absolute control over its future development—so that they could, in their own words, secure private investment to promote its growth. Only time will tell whether that particular development will lead to a planning application that will amount to a MIP, but it is a possibility.
	I ask myself how, if planning applications for an incinerator or airport are submitted, the process proposed in the Bill will enable local people and communities, environmental groups and elected representatives such as councillors and Members of Parliament to express their views. That includes their ability to make representations on national policy statements that would set the framework for individual decisions, as well as individual inquiries on specific applications.
	I have great sympathy with those who regard the Bill's proposals as an unnecessary dilution of existing procedures for engaging the public. We are told that the present inquiry process is unfairly protracted, but little empirical evidence appears to have been provided by Ministers to demonstrate the extent to which the present opportunities for public involvement and engagement are responsible for that. In some cases that are cited as examples of the protracted process, the way in which applicants have presented their case and the delay between the end of an inquiry and the announcement of a decision by Ministers have been the main culprits. I dare say that, if he manages to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) may even cite the oft-quoted example of Heathrow's terminal 5. In that instance, the process was prolonged by the applicant's lack of preparation and subsequent changes in the application, and by the time that it took for a decision to be made once the inquiry was over.
	We have been told that the present inquiry process is a barrister's beanfeast. Barristers are always good whipping boys in any discussion of this type. It is asserted that many citizens lack the confidence to contribute to a process in which they may be cross-examined by those intimidating successors to Torquemada. I find that argument somewhat tendentious, if not patriarchal and patronising. In any case, whatever the process, many people—irrespective of their background—lack the confidence to contribute at any public meeting. It is not unusual for them to defer to others to provide representation, whether those people are members of their own community or organised pressure groups—"green" groups, for example.
	There is also a mindset, which I consider particularly unhealthy—I do not accuse my hon. Friend the Minister of holding this view—that sees objectors to planning applications as nimbys, and the present procedures as a nimby's charter. As Churchill once observed, the trouble with democracy is that it is the worst form of government apart from all the rest. The Government's wish to truncate the process in the way that the Bill suggests is another aspect of the desire to remove some essential, but sometimes slightly awkward, democratic elements. It seems that Ministers are exaggerating the murkiness of the bathwater to justify throwing out the baby.
	Perhaps I am guilty of a touching naivety, but I do not think it beyond the wit of Ministers or their civil servants, particularly in the context of the proposed national policy statements, to analyse the lessons of previous protracted processes and to inject a greater discipline that does not require removal of the right to appear and to cross-examine.
	I believe that the Bill transmits the wrong message: support for business at the expense of the community. Councils such as Leeds are constantly spinning the political line that over-intensive development on brownfield sites, including gardens, is being forced on them by the Government. Of course, they do not reveal that the guidance on brownfield development of gardens was introduced by the last Government. They do not reveal that they have powers under the 2004 Act to draw up plans to provide action plans and a local framework to address local issues of over-development. Nor do they admit that PPS3 on housing allows them to examine planning applications in the light of local housing needs, particularly for families. Far from helping to explode some of these political myths, the Bill simply helps to reinforce them.
	NPSs are key documents in determining applications and obviously can be site-specific. Yet despite their power and influence over people's lives, there does not appear—I may be wrong—to be any clearly specified right to be heard in the preparation process. Paradoxically, this right does exist for local planning documents under the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, but it is essential that NPSs are likewise subject to robust and guaranteed public consultation. The consultation provisions contained in the Bill seem a little vague and subject to a very broad exercise of discretion by the Secretary of State.
	The Bill needs to be strengthened to ensure that a clear and unambiguous commitment to publicity and consultation exists in respect of NPSs and, for the process to be effective, it should include policy options so that people can look at what has been considered. If the Bill is not to represent a retrograde step in terms of public involvement, it should build on the 2005 rules for major infrastructure project inquiries and contain an effective right to be heard in person at all stages of the inquiry process with qualified rights to cross-examine and to test evidence.
	It is essential that the Secretary of State and the IPC issue specific guidance on community involvement and, as we have heard, it is essential that we have adequate resourcing of groups such as Planning Aid to allow people to participate effectively in the process.
	Most, if not all, of us will have had experience of pre-application consultations conducted by developers. Often they are merely a lip-service exercise. Often they make little or no difference to the eventual application that is submitted. I believe that applicants must be guided in much greater detail as to their responsibilities in consulting local people. If the process is to mean anything, the applicant must be required to consider the reasonable mitigation of the proposals that they submit, perhaps in the form of a statement of the impact of the development that is considered by the IPC.

Paul Truswell: Sorry. It sounds as if my hon. Friend has had a number of constituency experiences that exactly reflect the sort of point I was trying to make.
	I cannot help but feel that the IPC cuts fiercely against the grain of what a democratically accountable and responsive planning process should be. Anybody wielding the immense powers that are to be allocated to the IPC must be democratically accountable and allow proper public engagement by allowing for robust testing of evidence. The Bill does not appear to make any real provision for this.
	I would have no objection—I am echoing the points made by a number of Members—to an expert body having a major independent advisory role, but not a decision-making role. It has been suggested that this role might be allocated to the Planning Inspectorate rather than creating the IPC. I can understand the attraction to Ministers of insulating themselves against the pressures of taking decisions on what are often highly charged political issues. It is a little like the process that the Conservative party is considering in terms of distancing itself from unpopular local decisions in the NHS, if it ever manages to get into government. I doubt whether that will work and I am not sure that the IPC will work as a similar barrier.
	Finally on democracy and public engagement, may I express my objection to what could be viewed as retrospective policy formulation, a point made effectively by Opposition Members? I am concerned that clause 11 allows the Secretary of State to designate existing policy documents as national policy statements. Obviously some of these documents pre-date the more robust sustainability assessments that have come into force more recently. Previous policy documents were not designed to take into account recent statutory targets, such as the carbon emission reductions that we will look at in due course. The best example has already been quoted—the "Future of Air Transport" White Paper 2003, which was obviously published before there was a requirement to comply with either the strategic environmental assessment directive or the habitats directive.
	The Department for Transport has already indicated that the air transport White Paper will form the basis of an NPS on airport developments—something I do not feel I could possibly support. This approach also negates the principle that any consultation exercise must be clear on the effects of the proposals being consulted upon. Designating an existing policy document as a national policy statement would afford it a far greater status in the planning system than the public could reasonably have assumed at the time of the original consultation, a time when the idea of national policy statements was not even a twinkle in the Secretary of State's eye.
	Finally, I wish to outline some of my concerns about how the Bill relates to climate change. Ministers have said that one justification for the Bill is that it will create a structure that speeds up the shift to renewable and lower-carbon energy and supports development of low and zero-carbon building. The fear I have is that it could equally create a structure that allows other applications that are far less positive in these terms to go ahead.
	I am certain that Members on both sides share my view that every relevant policy and Bill that passes through this House must have climate change printed through it, like a stick of rock. It feels that it is simply scribbled on the surface of the Bill. I welcome the proposal that a sustainable development duty be placed on Ministers in preparing national policy statements, but that needs to be strengthened in order to be convincing and fully effective. The IPC should also have a sustainable development duty that would require it to operate in line with the UK's climate change objectives. The Bill should also provide for the monitoring and reporting of that duty by Ministers and by the IPC. I also support the proposal that the independent committee on climate change that features in the Climate Change Bill should be a statutory consultee in the NPS process and in specific applications being considered by the IPC.
	My time has run out, so I end by saying that I really look forward to the Minister for Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (John Healey), assuring me that the Bill is not the retrograde step I fear. But as it stands at the moment, I would have great difficulty in supporting it in its entirety.

David Curry: I entirely agree. Any national policy on airports is in fact solely about Heathrow and Stansted. Any significant expansion has been ruled out for Gatwick, but there is currently a huge argument about Stansted. I should, perhaps, point out that I live 12 miles from Stansted's central terminal; that is where my family home is. Plans to expand Luton have been abandoned, and the discussion is now about Heathrow. Once again, one does not have to be a prophet to know about such matters. The national policy statement is so close to the planning decision that it is difficult to see a real distinction between the two.
	On consultations by the developer, I am always suspicious of anything that talks about stakeholders. North Yorkshire's bid for unitary authority status was based on detailed consultation with the stakeholders who all said that it was a very good idea, but the public did not think it was a good idea at all. The public are not the same as the stakeholder. The public are the public as individuals, not the public constructed into representative bodies. We must be careful that such consultations are real.
	What about the decision makers themselves? There might be 45 cases a year—one for every working week, setting aside the inevitable gap over the summer holidays. If the commission has added expert panels—there might be an energy, aviation or water panel—in practice we will ask perhaps three or four people to deal with the cases. They will take a huge degree of responsibility, and they are appointed people. They will not have the quasi-judicial status of the inspectorate even if the Government wish to endow them with that quality. How will they be chosen? Will that be like the process for selecting members of the Monetary Policy Committee of the Bank of England? Will they be nominated for a certain period? Will they be subject to parliamentary confirmation hearings? If Parliament is to be given a new role, it seems a good idea for them to have to submit themselves to parliamentary hearings. Is the expertise required a planning or policy expertise, or is it more important for there to be submissions of a representative nature, following on from the remarks on community engagement? I sometimes think that it is a pity that Sir Michael Lyons is now otherwise engaged, as he served so many useful purposes for the Government when they were in a bind. What is clear is that the commission will not sit on any matter as a college, but it will endorse panel decisions. It is difficult to see it not endorsing them. To whom will it at the end of the day be accountable?
	One element of the proposals requires particular explanation. The Secretary of State told us in a written statement of 27 November that
	"the Bill will make it clear that any person who registers an interest can give oral evidence at relevant stages of the inquiry."—[ Official Report, 27 November 2007; Vol. 468, c. 13WS.]
	Yet at the same time we are to have a statutory timetable on inquiries and decisions of perhaps nine or 12 months. How are those two needs reconcilable? We all know that if our constituents come to us and say, "We object to this development, it has been rejected by the council and there will be an appeal," we say, "Don't agree to a written exchange. Make sure you go for a public inquiry, because you will get your voice, that will push the whole procedure back and the developer might walk away at the end of the day." So what happens if the objectors are sufficiently organised to make sure that 10,000 people register their interest? How do the Government intend that their promise that those people's voice will be heard will be compatible with the speed of the decision making which we have been promised?
	I do not think the Select Committee will necessarily be of huge assistance in practice. First, there is beginning to be a huge overload of work and commitments, especially if we are to have regional Select Committees as well; the Government have gone rather quiet on that idea, however, so I am not sure where we are on it. They might regard dealing with such matters as their role; if there is to be a major development at Heathrow or Stansted, for example, the relevant regional Select Committee might think that that is much more its business than that of an inter-group, as it were, whose membership is drawn from other Select Committees. How will those involved avoid being swamped by the demand to be heard? What distinct marketing niche can be offered?
	We need to know what is envisaged on the reservation to the Secretary of State of decisions on exceptional projects. In a sense, the whole structure exists to deal with exceptional projects. I find it difficult to see at what stage something becomes so extra exceptionally exceptional that is goes to the Secretary of State for a decision. What is the factor X that sends something back to Whitehall?
	On the community infrastructure levy, the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford) explained that on aspects of the Bill, he was confused about whether we were talking about a levy or a tax. I share that confusion, but I shall not draw my confusion to the attention of the House, because his confusion will serve for us both. I hope that both our confusions will be simultaneously enlightened.
	Of course, we welcome the abandonment of a planning gain supplement, but it is important to know how the roof tax, as I suppose we will end up calling it, will work in practice and what the relationship will be between the infrastructure levy and the site-specific levy. I understand that they will both be wrapped up in the much-maligned, but extremely useful, section 106 agreements. It is important that social housing, more of which has been built as a result of section 106 agreement planning gain than of any other mechanism, should be maintained. How widely will the infrastructure needs be assessed? Will that be done on a local, area or regional basis?
	The regional development agencies are to have competence in this regard. Let us remember that a few months ago the Government were explaining their views on the role of regional bodies and regional agencies, but they are removing accountability to regional assemblies. We do not yet know how RDAs will be made accountable, given the huge new planning competence with which they are being endowed by the Government.
	There is an argument for some sort of cross-border use of funding. It applies particularly in places bordering metropolitan areas—travel-to-work areas where people go from rural areas into the metropolitan ones. I do not take an ideologically hostile view of such proposals, but there is a good explanation of why it matters to local people if that is to be how the money is used.
	We must ensure that the new needs are being met. The emphasis is that they must be new infrastructure needs; this is not about all the old deficiencies. It is sometimes not easy to make a distinction between a long-time aspiration and a specific infrastructure need that flows directly from the development taking place. How will the scheme work on brownfield sites that have been assembled by compulsory purchase orders, which are themselves governed by a statutory provision, where developers might turn out to be the occupiers?
	How confident are we that local authorities have the capacity to manage the rather more complex system? All of us have encountered severe problems in the manning of planning departments. An army of itinerant antipodeans seems to park for periods in planning departments as part of a world tour. I hope that some sort of guidance will be available—the industry is talking about having some sort of body to help with this—because if local authorities are to have discretion on what levies they raise, it will be important to have some lubrication of the process to ensure that it works smoothly.
	Finally, may I make a small plea? Nothing discredits the planning system more than people who deliberately bend the rules by getting planning permission for A and then doing A and a bit more, such as developing the site a little more densely, making the roof lines higher than suspected or doing something thinking that they can always obtain planning permission later. Local authorities are extraordinarily reluctant to take such matters up, because they think that doing so will be expensive or a barren sort of passage. People rightly get extremely upset when they see that someone has deliberately decided to play fast and loose with the system—we all know that some businesses seem to specialise in doing that—and that there is no, or infrequent, redress.
	We want the system to have credibility and legitimacy, but there are huge questions about the legitimacy of the mechanism that is going to be erected. An enormous amount will depend on the people involved, the manner in which they take decisions and the decisions that they take in the early period. If the final decision-making power is to be removed, despite all the apparatus of consultation, the citizen must feel that when a decision is taken it sticks. Decisions that remain more local must be much more rigorously enforced, so that a decision taken is what finally appears. That is a niggly point, but credibility and legitimacy are essential to a system that seeks to mediate between interests that are often difficult to reconcile and that on some occasions may not be reconcilable. Those cultures are hugely important in making the system work well.

Clive Betts: My hon. Friend's comments have a ring of truth, and I am sure that many hon. Members and people outside share that view. Ultimately, section 106 agreements are a matter for local authorities, and central Government cannot be too prescriptive. In the past, I have regularly encouraged Ministers to issue firm guidance on section 106, and there could be some naming and shaming of authorities that do not use 106 agreements for the intended purposes.
	It is unclear how section 106 will relate to the new community infrastructure levy. Presumably section 106 will still be used for affordable housing, parks and community centres. However, if a road is needed to connect a new development to a main road, is that infrastructure that has to be funded out of the community infrastructure levy or can it still be funded out of 106 funding? If 106 funding is agreed for particular items, will it reduce the tariff payable, or will the tariff be fixed in respect of the 106 contributions? In Committee, we will have to examine the 106 funding arrangements and their relation to the community infrastructure levy. Does an increase in one mean a reduction in the other?
	In general, the CIL will be better than the PGS, because the former will be part of the planning system, variable at local level and determined by local councils as part of the local development framework, and it will therefore relate more to local circumstances in which it is collected and spent. However, we need to examine precisely how it will operate and its relationship with other provisions, such as section 106.
	Opposition Members have raised the issue of whether the levy might be required, or possibly allowed, to fund sub-regional and regional infrastructure projects. We have to be clear about whether there will be requirement by the Government for local authorities to make contributions from their levies to such projects, or will authorities be permitted to contribute if they want to do so? I think that that is what the Secretary of State said earlier, but we will need greater clarity on that point.
	The levy will not be a simple tariff, such as that in Milton Keynes, where the developer pays a certain amount for each individual house that it has built. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich said, the levy can vary by type of development, purpose of development or description of development, although not by location. There is an omission from the legislation. Presumably, if a development takes place in an inner-city area, as opposed to a suburb, we would want a power for the local authority to vary the levy according to location. Ministers should consider whether the current variability of the levy is sufficient.
	I support the comments made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich. I do not understand why the word "value" is included in the Bill in relation to the potential regulations. If we are not going to have a planning gain supplement or reference to a complicated method of trying to identify how much the value of a site has been increased by planning permission, why does the Bill need to give a local authority the right to vary its tariffs according to the increase in value of a site because of planning permission? Ministers will get themselves in an awful mess if we leave the valuation process in the Bill. Presumably the whole intent of the levy is to get away from that and to have a system that is determined by planners, in discussion with developers, on a much simpler and more certain basis. At the same, there should be some flexibility in the levy, so that it can be varied according to the type of development, and hopefully its location. Clearly, there is a balance to be struck between flexibility and certainty, but Ministers should reflect on the whole issue of including valuation, as otherwise we are going to get into some real difficulties when it comes down to practical examples of calculating the value of the levy.
	There is one issue that has not been mentioned very much in the discussions about how far we are enabling an increase, or causing a reduction, in democratic input into the planning process. Local member review boards are to be set up to ensure that more decisions on planning matters, particularly smaller ones, are not referred outside the democratic process, to the Planning Inspectorate, but are dealt with inside the democratic arena, with reference to another board of members. We should welcome that. The Local Government Association has certainly welcomed it. The Government should be congratulated on giving more responsibility back to local councils, and putting more trust in them, in a way that most of us would welcome.
	In general terms, I welcome the proposed legislation. The Government are right to highlight the problems with major infrastructure projects and to bring forward a system of dealing with those projects in a particular way. There are concerns and questions about community and democratic involvement, which we need to tease out as the Bill progresses. It is right to bring in the community infrastructure levy to ensure that the public purse benefits from the gain to private developers when planning permission is given. There are lots of questions about how that will operate in practice. It is also right to set up the local member review boards, as a commitment to the local democratic process, which I know that fundamentally the Government support.

Robert Syms: First, I draw Members' attention to my entry in the Register of Members' Interests, so that they are clear that I have an interest in a family business.
	Planning causes more anger and concern among my constituents than virtually any other issue. In my constituency surgery, I probably see more people about planning than any other issue. Any Government who seek to change and reform the system are very brave because planning is an issue that angers and moves people. It is rising up the political scale—a situation that is likely to get worse. We are a nation of owner-occupiers and people relate almost everything that goes on in their neighbourhood to the value of their home. Even when something might put up the value of their home, they always presume that it is going to reduce it. That tends to make people very anxious about what goes on.
	As a nation, one of our problems is that occasionally we have been too parsimonious in the compensation that we have paid people who live in the vicinity of very large infrastructure projects. Sometimes people feel that they are going to lose out, whereas if there were a far more generous scheme, we could speed up the planning process and allow people to be bought out. I have always thought that we ought to be a little more French when it comes to our large infrastructure projects. Clearly, there has been something wrong, over years, when it has taken a long time to produce something that is of overwhelming national interest. In the case of terminal 5, Schiphol and de Gaulle airports have added various runways in the time that it has taken us to get one more terminal at Heathrow. Our European competitors sometimes benefit from a much more streamlined system.
	Nevertheless, I am concerned about what the Government are suggesting in terms of the national policy statements. Clearly, one can set what might have to be a national target for the number of people who want to use airports or for the amount of energy that should be produced, but I am not sure whether one should discriminate between one form of energy or another in a national policy statement. Many of these things are market driven, and markets move. If politicians set a particular objective in a planning statement, in a short space of time the economics of their proposal may well change. I wonder how specific the policy statements are going to be. Will they specify X nuclear power stations, or will they specify what might be needed, on the one hand or the other, to meet a balanced energy policy?
	Rather like other Members who have contributed to the debate, I am a little concerned that the national policy statements will be too specific on a particular objective and that, as a result, they may do a lot of the work of the infrastructure planning commission by pre-determining what may be in the national interest without paying regard to the various options and alternatives and to what is happening in terms of the world economy. I am concerned about how those things will interact.
	I also have a concern—this point was raised ably by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts)—about the infrastructure planning commission. The Secretary of State may well be able to determine smaller applications, but that body may well determine some substantial decisions, such as those on nuclear power stations. In the same way as the perception is that the Foreign Office represents foreigners, we may well get a situation in which the infrastructure planning commission will represent the large infrastructure planning projects and be seen by most of my constituents and many people in this country to lead in those areas. Like many other contributors to the debate, I have a concern with the experts, rather than people who are neutral, who will make a judgment on some of these things.
	We need to speed up the planning process, but I am not sure that this proposal will do that, or do it in a way that does not cause great concern. At the most extreme, we have seen examples of civil protest. We have only to consider the Newbury relief road, and the cost that was added to that project by security, to understand that although we may on occasion be trying to save money on planning in the Bill, there may be other costs because of the civil disobedience that might occur if people do not feel that the system is fair.
	I welcome what the Government are doing with the community infrastructure levy. The original proposals were flawed and the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford) set out that the Bill is not entirely clear about how the levy will develop. However, a low tariff that captures some value from all developments, including one-home or two-home developments, is a much better way of doing things in the long term. Clearly, a lot of questions need to be asked.
	The Secretary of State said that there might have to be a regional or a county levy. Any source of money that is raised via a form of taxation will always be prone to Treasury interference. In the case of the grant settlement for police authorities, there is a formula to share the money. In the case of council housing rent, there is a national fund. Money is taken from some housing authorities and given to others. I cannot believe that a situation in which there will be hundreds of millions, if not billions, of pounds, and some authorities will get considerably larger sums of money than others, will not become a key item in relation to which the Government will need to build in some kind of transfer of resources.
	The Treasury may well lose capital gains tax on some projects as a result of the measure and therefore will be tempted to interfere. The amount of money raised will be substantial, so we need to know a lot more. What will happen to the interest on such moneys? Will there be pressure to spend the moneys within a particular time? Will authorities be allowed to passport money to other authorities if they perceive that there is some benefit to them?
	Although my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) joked about his constituents not wanting to pay for Luton, there might be an interest in a Luton airport expansion that provided some money for the region. That might be legitimate, but such a scenario might also be legitimate in relation to the extension of a motorway or a spur road that may not be within a particular council area, but may have an impact on businesses or vehicles going to that area. In East Anglia, for example, there are some quite isolated communities. Improving roads 20 or 30 miles away might have a benefit. We need to know how money can be moved around, so we need much more detail. I hope that the Public Bill Committee will be given that when it considers this important proposal.
	I raised conservation areas earlier. If more freedoms are introduced for people involved in the planning control system, will the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Dhanda)—if he is winding up the debate—tell us how that will impact on conservation areas? Clearly, there will be concerns that if people are allowed to do various things in Georgian areas, even if they are environmentally friendly, that might have an impact. We need a clear statement on where we stand.
	We need a little more information about what can be done about development control, which is something that most of my constituents consider to be a serious issue. There are a lot of people in Poole who use the planning system to get what they want—plus a bit. They create valuable developments by breaking the spirit of the system, and sometimes by deliberately breaking the law. We can all be blasé about the millions of pounds that are made through planning applications, and there have been a lot of major developments, especially infill developments, in Poole. The system does not give local authorities' development control people enough clout to deal with those who wilfully try to ride roughshod over the system. The fines need to be substantially higher, and the process and timetable to deal with such transgressions need to be faster. As the Bill goes through the House, especially in Committee, I hope that Ministers will look carefully at the real value that people get. Many development control officers are at a great disadvantage when dealing with people who break rules and regulations and ride roughshod over the system. The Bill might be an opportunity to deal with that problem.
	We have heard the Bill described as a house with no furniture. Although I welcome some aspects of it, we will need a lot of detail before we will know whether its architecture will work well. The Government must be careful about national planning statements, and the infrastructure planning commission is probably a move in the wrong direction. Like many hon. Members who have spoken, I think that it would have been better to have gone down the route of the Planning Inspectorate. The community infrastructure levy—if it is a levy—represents a much better way of raising money, given its transparency and the fact that it should be simpler. More importantly, while complicated section 106 agreements employ lawyers for ever—some cases take two years—the measure should cut a lot of lawyers' bills and the effort that they have to put into the planning system. If the proposal speeds up the system and allows people to do their calculations, it will be welcomed by both industry and those in government.
	Opportunities have been missed, however, so I hope that the Minister will at least look at whether we can increase fines and the powers of local authorities so that they can deal with people who transgress. Problems are being caused by the great shortage of decent planning officers because the private sector has taken good planning officers from the public sector to become private consultants. Nevertheless, we need to strengthen our local authorities' ability to deal with those who transgress.

Desmond Turner: I am aware of the point that the hon. Gentleman raises. He is quite right about the fiscal measures, but we have a multi-factorial situation. Fiscal measures are one factor, while the planning system is an equally important factor in determining progress on renewables in the UK. We need to get all the factors right, and we are addressing the planning system today.
	At present, we face the problem that planning and environmental consenting procedures incur enormous delays, both on land and at sea. While onshore wind farms attract most controversy, it is a sad fact that the environmental consenting procedure for a major offshore wind farm in this country takes twice as long—more than three years—as in Denmark or Germany. That lead time creates a deterrent to investors and means that we do not get carbon-free energy as quickly as we might.
	A further problem is that even when such projects receive consent, nothing can be done, because they cannot access the national grid due to its inadequacy. The strengthening of the grid is affected by the planning system because, under the present system, it can take 10 years to agree a grid line. In part, that is because such a line would inevitably pass through several planning authorities, all of which must give consent at every stage. There is clearly a lot of logic behind the infrastructure planning commission, which, in the context of climate change, will be essential.
	The UK is breaking new ground with the Climate Change Bill. As far as I understand, the principle behind that Bill is universally accepted throughout the House. No one will stand up in the Chamber to say, "We shouldn't be cutting our carbon emissions." However, whether that Bill is ambitious enough or not, it will be quite useless unless we put in place the nuts and bolts in other legislation that will actually deliver carbon savings. The planning system happens to be one of those nuts and bolts.
	There are 200 wind farm applications stuck in the planning system. That represents 8,000 GW of capacity that is desperately needed if we are to meet our renewables targets. Streamlining the process is therefore vital. I will not argue about whether the IPC is the right mechanism. Tonight, I have heard interesting arguments for and against it, but I do not know how different, in practice, it will be from the existing system of planning inquiries. However, it is important to note that infrastructure projects will be referred to it. An infrastructure project is not necessarily local. A grid line cannot be regarded as local; it can run for hundreds of miles. The sources of renewable energy are not located conveniently in the areas where we want to use electricity, or where we live. They may be off the north-west coast of Scotland or elsewhere, so the issue is very much national, and it is increasingly supranational. We must have a mechanism that can transcend the essentially local nature of our planning system. The IPC will at least do that.
	Of course, we have another problem: the process stops at the border with Scotland. I shall be interested to hear from Ministers on how they envisage our future relationship with the Scottish Parliament on planning, when it comes to dealing with infrastructure issues that affect both countries. Those issues probably affect us more than Scotland, because Scotland has more of the renewable resources that we want to access, but it has the legislative power to enable the exploitation of those resources. I have not heard that issue mentioned so far in this debate; it needs to be seriously addressed if we are to succeed. Not all of devolution was easy, and the issue that we are discussing is one of its more difficult aspects.
	There is another interesting point about the commission. I have spent the last two hours of the debate reading the clauses on the operation of hearings. To take once again the example of a grid line, if it goes through four or five counties, will they all be represented at the hearing? What mechanism is there for trying to select the people who will present their case at the hearings? If, for example, a six-month timetable was set, and a great many people wanted and demanded to be heard in the public hearings, it could become impossible to work the system. That is a practical issue on the conduct of hearings that the Government will need to think about carefully.
	The Government need to think a little more about the definitions on renewable energy projects that have been set for the reference of the commission. The 50 MW limit for onshore projects is probably reasonable. That leaves a lot of the probably more controversial local projects to be decided on under the current local planning system, and I do not argue with that. However, the 100 MW offshore limit will create, or rather will fail to resolve, problems for marine technologies.
	It is one thing for a 100-MW-plus wind farm to carry the significant costs of the environmental impact assessment that has to be done, and that will presumably continue to have to be done. Such assessments are among the things that take up the most time. The same exacting requirements are placed on much smaller projects involving new marine technologies, such as wave and tidal stream power. Those projects are inevitably smaller, because the technologies are only just emerging into the commercial world, but such projects still have to undertake an environmental impact assessment of the same rigorousness. It takes just the same time, and costs just as much, whatever the size of the project. Let us say that a person who is putting in place the first 1.2 MW commercial demonstrator machine has to pay £2 million for an environmental impact assessment. It would cost the same amount if they were developing a 100 MW wind farm, but if we think of the amount as a percentage of the project costs, it starts to become very burdensome for smaller projects.
	I agree with the British Wind Energy Association's suggestion that, for marine projects, we should amend the Secretary of State's reference limits to a level much lower than 100 MW. In practice, although newer technologies are developing, initially they will produce only 10 or 20 MW at a time. Inevitably, it will take them years to get up to the 100 MW level. One cannot entirely eliminate the development phase; it is crucial if we are later to get the very large yields of power that such technologies can deliver, and if they are to contribute to our carbon-saving ambitions. I strongly suggest that Ministers consider reducing that 100 MW level for all offshore marine projects, possibly to 10 MW or even lower. Perhaps they should do so specifically for non-wind projects. Certainly, non-wind projects need that help.
	There is potential for considerable improvement to the IPC. However, irrespective of its form and the details of its operation, the single most important thing about it is the strict time scales in which it will operate, which mean that we can potentially save years in the planning part of the development cycle. We will reap the dividends in the form of millions of tonnes of carbon dioxide that will not be emitted and vital new green industries that will be set up in this country.
	That does not alter the problem of all those projects that are still stuck in the planning system, because the new system will not be operational until 2009. My plea on behalf of the developers of such projects is for Ministers to do all that they can to take a stick to local authorities to make them produce quicker decisions. They should also take a stick to the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform, because it takes an enormous amount of time to deliver consents under section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989. Interestingly, most of those consents are for Scotland. We have a curate's egg of a situation: in some respects, we have all sorts of powers over things that happen in Scotland, yet in other respects we do not.
	The existing great mix of responsibilities with respect to planning and consents needs to be resolved. The Bill represents an important step on the road towards achieving that, but there are a few important details that need to be considered carefully.

John McDonnell: This is an important Bill. I would not extend its importance as far back as Cromwell, as the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) did, but from the Secretary of State's point of view it does go back as far as Dalton in 1947. It will set out the planning processes for the forthcoming generation.
	The Bill is also important for my constituents because the first major infrastructure project likely to be considered under the new process will be the third runway and the sixth terminal at Heathrow, which could lead to 10,000 of my constituents losing their homes and the demolition of three of their primary schools. It would mean the largest forcible removal of people from their communities since the Scottish clearances. I have looked at the latest consultation document and the new flight paths, and we now know—as we predicted—that BAA has made a proposal for an extended runway, not a short-take off one, which will impact on St. Peter's and St. Paul's mediaeval church in my constituency, and St. Mary's in Harmondsworth—a church with an 1,000-year history. We think that they will be rendered unusable, and we will be back where we were three years ago, with proposals to disinter our dead because of this plan. The Bill is important for me, my constituents and my communities.
	Much has been made of the experience of terminal 5, and I agree that the genesis of the Bill does come partly from the experience of terminal 5. However, it also comes from a lobby by BAA and the aviation industry over a long period, in their planning for the third runway and the sixth terminal and, I say to this House, in their planning for a fourth runway and a seventh terminal in due course, as admitted by former BAA policy planners. The Prime Minister, then Chancellor of the Exchequer, appointed not just one, but two experts to develop the Barker report and the Eddington report on transport and planning. To the shock, horror and amazement of all Members, I am sure, the appointment of the former chief executive of British Airways resulted in proposals to expand airports.

John McDonnell: Unless the Bill is amended significantly, I warn those hon. Members who may have a major potential development in their area—an airport, or any other hazardous development, such as a nuclear power facility—that their constituents' voices will not be heard. I warn those hon. Members that the process will enable Governments, developers and those who want to make profit out of the degradation of our local environments to ride roughshod over local views.
	The issues that were thrown up by the terminal 5 inquiry included the management of the process, the number of applications, the changes in applications during the process and the timetabling, but from my point of view they also included time wasting and the fact that no sanctions were applied against the developer who was wasting that time.
	Delays were obvious throughout that inquiry, and I believe that inspectors have commented on them. There was also a lack of resources for the objectives. However, the decision making was consistent and balanced. I did not agree with the decision of the inspector at the terminal 5 inquiry, Mr. Vandermeer, but I understood it. My constituents did not agree, but they understood. It was balanced: terminal 5 would be allowed, but there would be no further impact on noise, pollution or local communities.
	Even BAA agreed with the decision. Why did it agree? It agreed because its representatives stood up at the inquiry and promised that if it got terminal 5 there would be no representations for a third runway or sixth terminal. BAA wrote to me and my constituents and informed us accordingly. Its representatives stood by my side at a public meeting to assure my constituents that if BAA got terminal 5 it would not press for a third runway or future expansion at Heathrow. That was accepted by the Government.
	The then Secretary of State for Transport stood up in this Chamber, accepted the inspector's decision and capped air traffic movements at Heathrow, and said that there would be no further expansion of Heathrow on the basis of the inquiry. A consistent decision was made at the inquiry based on the evidence, and the Government adopted due process. That proved to be a deceit by BAA. We now know that while it was writing to me and my constituents and standing on platforms with me, it had started the lobby for the third runway and the sixth terminal. It was lobbying within months. Within 24 months, the Government had started the process of the development of the third runway and sixth terminal. The failure in the system was not the inquiry or the planning process, per se, but decision making at ministerial level, unduly influenced by the aviation industry.
	The aviation White Paper enabled the Government to dress up the decision to go forward and fed into the process of developing the Bill; it took no account of the climate change considerations at the heart of Government. We now know that the then Chancellor of the Exchequer was developing the various discussions on the impact of climate change while the aviation White Paper was being developed. The White Paper largely ignored the Government's integrated transport policies and the views of the Mayor of London, local authorities and the local people who would be affected by the major expansion of airports, not only at Heathrow but at airports all over the country.
	So, what is the situation? We are now operating in a hybrid system. It is the worst of all worlds. The aviation White Paper was drafted and dominated by the aviation industry lobbying the former Chancellor. The consultation paper that will be out for the next few months was drafted and virtually dictated by BAA, with the evidence modelled by BAA—that is the information that we have received under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. The consultation is degenerating into farce. There will not even be an exhibition held in the village—Sipson—that will be wiped out by the sixth terminal, as the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) pointed out during questions last week.
	We are told that we need to await a planning application. To be frank, following statements made by the Prime Minister in his speech to the City of London, by the Secretary of State for Transport and throughout the media, what inquiry into the extension of Heathrow can be held in a free and fair atmosphere?
	I am worried that the new system takes the worst of the current system and removes the best. A pre-application consultation is promised. Those who have experienced pre-application consultations by developers will assure hon. Members that they are not independent. Who drafts the reports? The developer. Will they be open to challenge? They never are. Will they be open to amendment in the light of the challenges put forward by those on whom any development will have an impact? No, they will not. Are they consensual? No. They provide no protection. At inquiries under the new system, will there be a right to be heard? No. There will be the potential of open-floor sessions. That is not the same as the right to be heard; it is a privilege to turn up only. Will objectors be able, as a right, to interrogate witnesses? No. The inquiry process from the objectors' point of view will be gutted by the proposals, as far as I can see.
	I welcome the additional resources in the Bill, including the additional £1.5 million for Planning Aid, which might help objectors. However, if there are to be 45 major infrastructure developments a year, as we have been told by the Secretary of State, the £1.5 million allocated to Planning Aid to assist local objectors, residents and environmental groups is trivial. It will in no way enable those groups to have an effective voice in the process.

John McDonnell: That is a valid point. Will the individual members of the commission be independent? A lot will depend on their appointment and the processes of that appointment. What worries me even more is that the commission, as the decision maker, will not be politically accountable. Whatever we think about the process at the moment, a Secretary of State—accountable to the House and, ultimately, to the electorate—signs off the final decision on major infrastructure projects. That is democracy. I believe that the commission's insertion between the electorate—those who will endure the planning decisions—and the House means that overall accountability breaks down. I accept the point of the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Andrew Stunell) and I, too, am concerned about commission members' independence, but independence sometimes derives from accountability when people feel that they can be held to account throughout the due processes.
	I asked the Secretary of State about the status of the policy statements and whether they would be amendable in the House. Her response was that there would be scrutiny, but that is not the same as being capable of amendment. Policy statements will therefore be similar to the aviation White Paper, and limited in their consultation—the Bill contains details of the methods of consultation. They will not be capable of amendment by the House and will therefore pre-empt local decisions because they are not simply general policy statements but can relate to specific geographical areas and projects.

Roberta Blackman-Woods: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Dan Rogerson). I agree with a number of his points about the lack of balance in some of our communities. However, I start by agreeing with the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Syms), who is not in his place now, in one respect, namely on the importance of planning to our communities. I represent a beautiful historic city, and I definitely receive more queries and hear more concerns about planning than any other issue.
	I welcome most of the Bill. Perhaps quite unusually, I want to address my comments to parts 9 and 10. Before doing so, however, I want to comment on the climate change issues. It is obvious that more needs to be done through the planning system to tackle climate change. I am pleased that the Bill puts a duty on councils in preparing their local plans to take action on climate change, which is very much missing currently. Also, the proposals to allow householders to install small-scale renewable technology such as solar panels and wind turbines without planning permission but subject to safeguards and standards is to be welcomed, albeit with one major proviso, namely that the process must not contravene conservation area policies. I should like the Minister to give some reassurances in that respect.
	The environmental impact of large-scale infrastructure projects will also need to be adequately evaluated against climate change criteria. Although the Bill goes some way towards improving the responsiveness of the planning system to the climate change agenda, unless the Government are careful, major infrastructure projects could work in the opposite direction. I hope that the legislation will make it clear that any large-scale infrastructure projects will need to contribute to our efforts to tackle climate change, rather than exacerbating it.
	The voice of local people will need to be adequately represented to the independent planning commission. The Minister will know that the need for a local community voice to be heard, and for adequate parliamentary scrutiny of national policy statements, is extremely important. Indeed, that issue formed a large part of the correspondence received about the Bill. Members from all parties have stressed the need for it to be made clear how the voice of the local community is to be heard by the independent planning commission, and for that voice to be seriously taken on board.
	I want to address most of my comments to parts 9 and 10 of the Bill. Part 9 seeks to amend the present system in regard to delegated powers for assessing planning permissions, and the appeals process that flows from that system. I appreciate that it is necessary to speed up and de-bureaucratise straightforward applications, especially when they are not contested. Nevertheless, I have concerns about this part of the Bill on which I would like the Minister to reassure me. First, will he assure me that delegated powers will be used only when a planning application is minor and when it faces no objections? It will be essential to establish that an authority has adequately informed all those who would be affected, and that proper processes are in place for doing so. It is not clear what would happen if objections were not received because the authority had not sent out accurate notices to all concerned. In addition, councils will need to be sure that incremental changes do not take place, and that, for example, policies to protect conservation areas remain intact. Certain incremental changes could perhaps go relatively unnoticed by a local authority.
	I have grave concerns that appeals in such cases are to be referred to a local member review body, especially as things stand at the moment. The experience of the operation of the Licensing Act 2003 at local level shows that not all authorities are able to rise to the task of judging local licence applications. If the Government are to give a greater role to local councillors in judging planning applications, they will have to ensure that adequate training is put in place to enable them to undertake that role effectively. In particular, they must be able to gain access to external expertise if necessary; otherwise, we shall be placing a role on local authorities that they simply will not have the capacity to deliver.
	I am also deeply concerned that the Government have made no effort to introduce third-party rights of appeal, even in a limited way. I understand that they are very nervous about that, and that the idea is horrendous to the civil servants involved. The Bill provides an opportunity, however, to implement very limited third-party rights of appeal and to test their significance on the whole planning system. We could then determine whether they would result in the horror that is sometimes anticipated. Surely it would be possible to allow them in clearly defined circumstances, to root out frivolous claims. Importantly, this would allow people to feel that they had a greater say in a system that at present often appears developer-led.
	The Library briefing paper on the Bill notes that the response to the proposal for local member review boards was largely negative, mainly because of concerns about political bias. I understand that the Government have overturned that argument by saying that the boards could strengthen local accountability. On balance, I agree with that, but with the caveats, which I mentioned earlier, about the increased need for training and the need for absolute transparency in the process. I am not sure how that would be achieved, as Opposition-run councils often blame the Government of the day for their decisions anyway. I am not sure that the Government have worked out how to ensure that local authorities are made responsible for the decisions that they make.
	My biggest problem with the Bill is the lack of any proposals to monitor the quality of decision making by local planning authorities. That is a huge missed opportunity. Current methods of assessment have a number of ways of evaluating local planning authorities, but they are largely target-driven. The decisions made by planning departments are really important, but I believe that we understate the importance of planning in general. The nature and form of the built environment affect us all. Decisions that are made in the planning process affect not only ourselves but future generations, because of the long-term nature of building. It has social justice, heritage and economic dimensions, as well as aesthetic and cultural factors, but little attention is paid to what is delivered or to whether it meets not only the objectives of the local plan but—more importantly—the expectations of the local community.
	At present, there are few powers to intervene when something appears to be going wrong in the planning process. I do not see why the planning system cannot have something similar to the local involvement networks—LINks—system that has been set up for health. In such a system, local people, as part of a citizens' panel with local experts, could scrutinise the actions of the local authority and produce a report once a year that had to be debated in the council. There would have to be a response to any recommendations that were made. It is important that such a panel should not consist of local councillors.
	I want the Secretary of State and the Minister to give serious consideration to this proposal. It would not be expensive to implement, and it would do much to highlight and embed good planning practice across the country. In specific areas, it could also address some of the imbalance relating to pro-development policy, and deliver much-needed accountability into the planning system at local level. As with LINks, local councils could be charged with putting such a scrutiny panel together, under Government guidance.
	Part 10 of the Bill introduces the community infrastructure levy. That seems a good idea, but like other Members I am not clear about how it will interact with section 106 agreements. I realise that clause 172 of the Bill relates to this issue, but I believe that further clarification is needed. It is a pity that the Bill does not insist that section 106 agreements be delivered by local authorities. I am sorry to have to criticise the Liberal Democrats, but they have said much about affordable housing in the debate. My area is faced with a Liberal Democrat council that took three years to adopt the affordable housing section of the local plan. Furthermore, since it did so in April this year, it has not put through one planning permission that has attracted affordable housing. The point that I want to make to the Minister is that it is good that we have section 106 agreements, but they need to be applied by local authorities. We also need to be clear about how they will relate to the community infrastructure levy.
	I also welcome support for Planning Aid, but I would argue that it is not yet fit for the purpose outlined for it in the Bill. It has too much professional capture and in my opinion does not adequately address community issues or adequately support local community groups. If the Government are going to give greater support to Planning Aid, I hope that they will look very seriously at how that organisation is equipped to support community organisations as they seek to make their voice heard in the planning system.
	I want to raise the issue of trees. A recent report from the London School of Economics states that, apart from Ireland, we are the most deforested country in Europe. It is a pity that the Bill did not take a greater opportunity to ensure that our trees are adequately protected. There are many examples from my own authority where tree preservation orders are simply disregarded in the planning system. I would really like to see a strengthening of legislation to protect trees.
	One point about the community infrastructure levy that, as other Members have argued, is not clear at the moment is whether it is a betterment tax or a levy on the value of the whole development. Will the Minister say something more about that?
	Lastly, I come to the issue of the need for sustainable and balanced communities. As mentioned earlier, we need an amendment to use class orders, whereby communities that have gone out of balance, as with some student areas or others, can be brought back in. Local authorities need additional tools to be able to tackle areas that have gone out of balance. I would like the Minister to make some proposals on how that issue can be addressed.

Mark Prisk: I begin by mentioning my entry on the Register of Members' Interests as a member of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors. If I may, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I would also like to offer my apologies to you and indeed the House for being absent for 90 minutes; it was due to my making a contribution in a Committee upstairs. I am particularly sorry to have missed the contribution of my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer). He mentioned Swampy in a question, but I gather that his later contribution to the debate was a little more historical; I believe he gave us a gentle canter through history with reference to Oliver Cromwell, so I look forward to reading the record tomorrow.
	As we have heard in a number of contributions, planning is one of those peculiar subjects that excites little interest in the abstract—indeed, we can see that on the Government Benches—but real passion and debate in practice. To be fair, I thought that the contribution of the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) was exemplary. He was a doughty fighter, who showed what he can do in standing up for his constituents, and I applaud him for that. The reason for the contradiction between the abstract and the practical is that planning shapes the world in which we both live and work. It determines what is built in our communities, and indeed where it is built. As we all know to our cost, bad planning decisions leave a permanent scare with which, frankly, many of have to live with on a permanent and daily basis. That is why it is so important that we get the balance between efficiency and accountability right.
	Over the past 10 years, the current Government have been in a muddle about how to manage the planning and development system. Instead of focusing on making development control function better, Ministers have commissioned an endless tide of studies and reviews. They have held consultations and briefings, but in the end have often ignored the findings of the whole process. They have wasted millions of pounds. Somewhere, there are acres of files of all those studies and reviews; in all that time, they have achieved almost nothing towards their proposed purpose.
	Meanwhile, the Government have restructured the responsible Department no fewer than five times since 1997. That has cost a fortune, demoralised the staff and undermined effective policy development and implementation. As we have learned from recent biographies and so on, much of that upheaval, as Tony Blair has suggested, has simply been to accommodate the ego of his former deputy, the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott).

Mark Prisk: My right hon. Friend shows his expertise in the subject and as a former Secretary of State, and he is right to say that we cannot somehow divorce those two subjects as if they have no relation. They are related and they should be dealt with in that way; he is quite right to make those points.
	The Bill is the Government's latest attempt to reform the current system, so let me start by welcoming its principal stated aim—to simplify how essential infrastructural projects secure planning permission. That is a worthy aim. For too long, projects of national importance have been treated in largely the same way as domestic planning applications. Thus we have seen the peculiarity of treating the installation of a major waterworks in much the same way as we would treat our neighbours' extensions or loft conversions. There is no sense in that. Planning for our national infrastructure needs to be long term, holistic and proactive, and any development control or planning system must reflect that point.
	Having made that broad general sweeping point, I would like in my remaining time to touch on three areas. The first is the infrastructure planning commission. Although I support the need to reform how we plan our national infrastructure, I have to tell the Minister that I have yet to hear an intelligent argument for setting up another democratically unaccountable quango— [Interruption.] I have heard arguments for it, but I am not sure that they have been intelligent.
	The proposed commission would be responsible to the Secretary of State, but would not be directly accountable to this House or those whom we represent. I think that that is wrong in principle, and it will be viewed by the public with the greatest degree of scepticism. In my constituency, we are fighting the nonsensical plans for a second runway at Stansted airport and, I might add, speculative development on 1,500 acres of green-belt land. The idea that an unelected quango, which reports to Ministers and is appointed by them, should decide our fate would be seen by my constituents as both undemocratic and unacceptable.
	On a practical note, the commission's role seems frequently to overlap with those of a variety of other Government-inspired quangos, not least the new homes and communities agency and the Government's beloved regional quangos, the regional development agencies. I posed this question to the Secretary of State, but perhaps the Minister can provide a better answer. If the homes and communities agency proposes a new eco-town settlement in one location, but the new commission envisaged by the Bill determines that the utilities, including power and water, and the road system should require a different location, who will arbitrate? What will actually happen? Who will be in charge? Will it be the Minister, and will there be an endless row and legal complaints? It will be interesting to see whether the Minister can respond. The Secretary of State tried to say that housing was nothing to do with the new commission. Indeed, but we cannot have a new town without roads; and we cannot have new houses without the water and electricity that go with them, so the idea that we can separate infrastructure from housing and assume that there will be no conflict is a mistake. I hope that the Minister will address that point.
	It is true that there could be an argument for an independent body that sets a long-term framework for our national infrastructural needs. Such a body could be advisory, but it must be clearly independent of ministerial interference; indeed, it might work much as the chief scientific adviser works within the Whitehall machinery today. Several professional bodies, including the Institution of Civil Engineers as well as my own professional body, have made a powerful case for such a framework, but it would be more than is envisaged in the Bill, not least because it would provide an holistic approach rather than trying to detach utilities from roads, for example, or airports from the former. I would be grateful if the Minister expressed his views on that.
	On a more detailed point, I notice that there seems to be no inclusion of flood defences in the list of nationally significant infrastructure projects. Given the various references in the debate to climate change and events earlier this year, perhaps the Minister can tell us whether that is deliberate or just an oversight.
	I would like to deal briefly with the question of how the planning system will affect the development of our town centres, as the Bill contains some relevant powers. I am concerned that the future of our high streets is in peril—not just from the coming consumer slowdown, but more fundamentally because independent shops in traditional high streets face a wide range of issues that restrict them from competing. In the context of the Bill, I am particularly concerned about how the tests used in planning are being undermined by Ministers and their advisers. As the "Save Our Small Shops" campaign in the  Evening Standard has shown, people value their local shops, but it is becoming increasingly difficult for those enterprises to remain in business.
	In particular, and following reports from Kate Barker and the notorious Rod Eddington, I am concerned that the needs test may be removed by Ministers. The danger is that that could allow more out-of-town supermarkets at the expense of our town centres and local high streets. Competition between supermarkets is not the only issue. The planning system must have regard to the socio-economic and environmental importance of town centres and high streets. After all, a city whose centre is struggling is a community that is losing its heart. If we neglect that centre by permitting badly placed out-of-town developments, the result will be felt throughout the community. I say to Ministers, "Be very careful to whom you listen." Thousands of independent firms need town centres that can compete, as indeed do many of our long-established businesses, such as the John Lewis Partnership. If Ministers loosen the planning system, they could undermine not just the independents, but the long-term town centre investment that we all want.
	Part 10 deals with the community infrastructure levy. I welcome the Government's second thoughts on their proposals for a planning gain supplement—a wise decision taken somewhat in elongated fashion, but they sort of got to the right decision in the end. The planning gain supplement was ill conceived and prematurely presented. Quite why it has not been repealed I do not know, but I hope—perhaps the Minister can confirm this—that the Government do not still have some bizarre hope of bringing it back in a different form. If they do, it will make the home information packs fiasco look like a glorious triumph.
	Of course, there is no doubt that the way in which planning gain is captured financially needs to be reformed. I fully accept that. Section 106 agreements were fine when they began, but they have become a serious delay in planning decisions. The principles of that reform need to be based on a clear link between the proposed development and its local impact. Various Members have referred to that point. It means that any Treasury attempt to claw back moneys into its coffers or to do a little top-slicing for the regional quangos would be a serious mistake. Ministers have given a hazy response on the question of top-slicing.
	Part 10, which introduces the levy, is nothing more than a blank cheque that Ministers expect us to approve, without any idea of what will be changed or indeed charged. For example, it provides for a levy, but does not say what will be levied. It provides for empowering authorities to charge a levy, but does not state exactly which authorities they will be. When it comes to the amount charged, and its collection and enforcement, we are asked to agree to the Government deciding all that later on, but without a full debate here in the Chamber.
	I have to say to the Minister that that is an appalling way to legislate. When he was at the Treasury, the stamp duty land tax was introduced in the same haphazard way. The general message from the then Chief Secretary was, "We'll correct it along the path." We are being asked to agree to a tax on something yet to be defined by authorities yet to be named for an amount yet to be decided. Would it not have been wiser to introduce the measure in a few months, perhaps in its own Bill, after detailed discussions with the industry? For example, what exactly does the Bill mean by "community infrastructure"? I have seen various reports that the Minister for Housing has said that that could be negotiated locally. Although I understand the need for agreements to reflect specific and local circumstances, it would help everyone if some simple parameters were set to avoid protracted negotiations in each and every planning authority.
	The need to reform and improve the planning system has been accepted on all sides, not least regarding our national infrastructure needs. Although there are some good measures here, I am extremely concerned that they have been undermined by Ministers failing to strike the balance between democratic accountability and administrative efficiency. If the Bill is given a Second Reading, I hope that Ministers will listen carefully to the debates on amendments tabled in Committee, even if they would change substantial parts of the Bill. We cannot have another planning Bill in a couple of years because we got it wrong again this time.
	In the end, the effect of getting this legislation wrong will be not just an administrative problem, but something that we have to live with in every town, city and constituency, and that is visible to this and future generations. If the Prime Minister is looking for a legacy, I would advise him carefully to ensure that the Bill does not form part of it.

Nia Griffith: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for calling me to speak in the debate. I want to focus on a specific issue. Although I will illustrate it with examples from my constituency, I am sure that many hon. Members know of similar examples from theirs.
	My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State mentioned in her opening speech the issue of statutory consultees. I ask her to ensure that water companies become statutory consultees. That is important for the development of nationally significant infrastructure and for far more modest local developments such as housing. Although local planning authorities often consult local water companies, there is no obligation to do so. Clearly, submissions from water companies would carry much more weight if those companies were statutory consultees, as other utilities are.
	Developments, whether large or small, produce additional sewage and surface water. Even if a new development provides for separate foul water and surface water systems on the development site or its immediate vicinity, all too often, further down the line, the foul water and the surface water enter existing systems. That puts increased pressure on existing and ageing structures, which causes particular problems when, as in my constituency of Llanelli, the original sewerage system has only one pipeline for sewage and surface water.
	Two specific issues arise from the overloading of existing systems—pollution and foul water flooding. Water companies seek consents from the Environment Agency to discharge spills into the sea. In Llanelli, overloading the system has resulted in significantly more spills into the Burry inlet than the number Welsh Water is permitted. In today's edition of  The Western Mail, under the headline "Sewage overspills 'turning nature sites into cesspit'", we read that Welsh Water is permitted no more than 10 "storm" spills per year, but that in the year to December 2007, at two sewage treatment works that open into the Burry inlet, and at the Northumberland Avenue pumping station, there have been 111, 115 and 118 spills respectively. That is absolutely disgraceful and of major concern in respect of the quality of bathing water in an area that is trying to develop tourism.
	In summer 2005, for example, Carmarthenshire county council's environmental health department warned against bathing at Llanelli beach, but not only bathing is affected. This is a unique area for cockles, and pollution is of particular concern to me because of how it affects the local shellfish industry. Local cocklers have explained to me that the amount of sewage pollution—the faecal count, to be precise—is critical to how cockle beds are graded. The cocklers also explained that the concentration of sewage is considered to be responsible for the dreadful cockle mortality in 2005, which devastated the cockle beds and badly affected the livelihood of the cocklers.
	The other effect of overloading sewerage systems is the increased risk of foul water flooding. Such flooding has occurred more than once in Nelson terrace, Llanelli. It was an absolutely disgusting event, which sadly was experienced by numerous families across Britain this summer. Although I welcome the new pumping system promised by Welsh Water for Cambrian place—I sincerely hope it will provide relief for the residents of Nelson terrace—it is an example of treating the symptoms rather than the cause. Of course Welsh Water should be doing everything possible to stop the spillages and reduce foul water flooding, but in the water company's defence, it has to be said that one of the major causes is undoubtedly the mushrooming of development. The sewage and surface water that result from such development ends up putting pressure on existing systems.
	Water companies are also concerned because they are increasingly having to take over sewerage systems that developers have provided for developments here, there and everywhere. Apart from the water rates paid by the new occupants, which are revenue funding to provide water and sewerage, the companies do not get any capital moneys to cover the costs of adopting new sewerage systems or upgrading structures to cope with the effects of additional load further down the line.
	For those reasons, I ask the Secretary of State to ensure that water companies are made statutory consultees. If that happens, they will have a duty to use their powers to the full. They would have to use their expertise to point out the full consequences of any proposed development on the whole sewerage system of an area. They must be listened to if we are to avoid polluting our beaches and seas and putting an increasing number of homes at risk from foul water flooding.

James Duddridge: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith), with whom I share a rather bizarre niche interest in the form of both sewage and cockles, also for constituency reasons. Sewage is a problem in the north of my constituency, and cockles are enjoyed along the Thames. I was interested to hear about her constituency.
	I was concerned when I looked at the Bill and only came to understand it when I saw it through the prism of potential case studies. I found the speech by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) incredibly powerful in relation to Heathrow. Prior to the debate, I jotted down one or two issues and inquiries that I could foresee. I thought that Heathrow, Stansted or the lower Thames crossing would be an acid test of whether the legislation can work, and, quite simply, it has failed the test.
	There is a broad consensus that there is a problem with planning, but equally there is a broad consensus, demonstrated in the points raised, that the Bill creates as many problems, issues and confusions as it solves. In excellent and well-researched speeches, many hon. Members said that they have been confused about aspects of the Bill, that they need greater clarity and that it is not clear what is proposed. To push things beyond Second Reading and into secondary legislation is not good enough. That may be acceptable for the few people who have the privilege of serving on the Committee, but it is not acceptable for other hon. Members who want to debate such matters on the Floor of the House on Second Reading.
	The disturbing thread running through the speeches is that having more planning and more development, and doing it faster, is a good thing. The Bill will mean more development faster, but it will not necessarily be the right development—the development that our constituents want.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) made an excellent speech covering Swampy, Napoleon and Cromwell. I am not going to delve further back in history, but the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington said that the Bill offers a generational opportunity. I suspect that if we look through  Hansard we will see that someone said that in 2004. My right hon. Friend described this Bill as a declaration of failure in the 2004 Bill. Although I agree that it was a failure, I do not think that this Bill will be remembered in that way; it is more likely to be remembered by the problems that it incorporates in the future.
	I want to touch on five key points: the national policy statement, the IPC, climate change, the democratic deficit and the community infrastructure levy, which is perhaps one of the most concerning parts of the Bill. I am not inclined to support the Bill and expect substantial changes in Committee to make it reasonable. The right hon. Member for Streatham (Keith Hill) talked about maximising the NPS and minimising the IPC. I think that that is the right direction to take. The concept of having national policy statements is superficially alluring. It would allow us to remove some of the broader strategic and technical debates from a local level so that we do not discuss the merits of nuclear against other renewables, or other big issues that are not site specific, at every public inquiry. However, a number of planning issues focus on the interaction between different policy statements. For example, the interaction between airport and road policy is surely what is meant by integrated transport. Seeing such things in silos does not make any sense.
	The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington talked about the reasons for introducing the Bill in terms of the problems of Heathrow. It would have been better to deal with that issue head on rather than simply having a Bill that may or may not cover such problems in the future. Coming from the Thames Gateway area in Southend, I was concerned that the lower Thames crossing would not be covered. I suspect that a Thames crossing between Shoeburyness in my constituency across to Kent would not be covered either.
	I am concerned about the IPC's structure and the costs involved. The Department's impact assessment makes it look like a well staffed operation. The chief executive will be paid £140,000, the chairman will be paid £150,000, the three deputy chairmen will each be paid £130,000—I do not know why such an organisation needs three deputy chairmen—and there will be 30 commissioners. From the excellent speech by the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Hywel Williams), I learned that one of the commissioners will be appointed by the Welsh Assembly. It will be interesting to know whether any of the remaining appointments will be as significant or whether the commissioners will simply be selected.
	The documentation makes cursory mention of a register of members' interests. It is incredibly important to consider the problems caused by conflict of interest that have been created in quangos in my area. More detail on the register should be in the Bill. We should also talk about people's experience before they serve on the commission. That needs to be registered and fully understood.

Martin Horwood: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East (James Duddridge) and to learn of his interest in cockles, which he shares with the hon. Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith). After her graphic speech, I do not think I will be eating cockles again for a while.
	Reform of the planning system is an admirable objective. The current system appears sometimes to be cumbersome, expensive and, at times, virtually incomprehensible. It could certainly do with some simplification and refinement. If anything, we need to strengthen, not weaken, the voice of local communities. In Leckhampton on the edge of my constituency, there were recently 700 objections to a planning proposal, which was duly defeated. Almost identical planning proposals have now been submitted and those 700 objections now count for nothing.
	In Charlton Kings on the edge of my constituency, we now face a concerted assault on the Cotswolds area of outstanding natural beauty, which most of us would have assumed was sacrosanct. However, the signals coming from Government are so mixed that developers are now eyeing up the AONB. Back gardens across Cheltenham are now being treated as brownfield sites and tilting the scales too far in favour of overdevelopment. I still find it odd that simple values such as ugliness and beauty still count for nothing in our planning process.
	The system needs reform and refinement but, in its way, it works. Local communities do come together to oppose unpopular developments. They trust the system enough to spend enormous time and effort on planning inquiries. My father Don Horwood spent the last years of his life fighting many planning inquiries on behalf of the Leckhampton greenland action group, which carries on that proud tradition of using the current system to represent community interests effectively.
	Such community action is sometimes inconvenient for Governments, and even more inconvenient sometimes for commercial interests. But that is democracy. If democracy does not sometimes make life inconvenient for those who have wealth and power in our society, it is not working. My worry about the Bill is that it makes life far too convenient for both Governments and unelected authorities as well as commercial interests.
	First, let us look at the powers of the Secretary of State. The right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), who is no longer in his place, mentioned aviation and the ability of the Secretary of State to incorporate wholesale existing policies such as the Government's aviation policy into the structure of national policy statements. On my reading of the Bill, this seems to be possible without going through the consultation process set out in the Bill, which will apply only to new national policy statements. So a decision to promote growth in aviation could be used to promote critical decisions such as Heathrow's third runway.
	Would not it be useful to be able to cross-examine the evidence for that runway? In a debate last week, I cited Friends of the Earth's insight that the cost of carbon in relation to the decision was three times lower than that recommended by the Stern report. It looked on the surface as though the Government were fiddling the cost of carbon to give a green light to a project that actually will help to defeat their own objectives on climate change. I raised that question in the debate. The Minister on that occasion chose not to answer the question, but instead to read out excerpts from Gillian Shephard's memoirs. That demonstrates the limits of parliamentary cross-examination, but at least the current planning process does offer cross-examination rights, which can be very useful in exposing the weaknesses—especially the environmental weaknesses—in major projects. In that system, people would not get away with reading excerpts from others' memoirs by way of an answer. Under the process described in the Bill, however, cross-examination can disappear altogether, in favour largely of a process of written submissions—and also, perhaps, of open-floor contributions, which sounds to me like a sop, in which people are entitled to stand up and say their piece but are then patted on the head, shown the door and never heard from again.
	Under the Bill, the Secretary of State has other unprecedented powers, for example, the ability to designate new areas of nationally significant infrastructure without resorting to further primary legislation. The planning White Paper addressed such new areas and chapter 2 related to nationally significant infrastructure, which included:
	"Building new water, waste disposal and recycling facilities, and constructing new housing developments".
	If even recycling and housing are to come within the remit of what is nationally significant infrastructure, it might be quicker to list the things that are left out. There is also a clear temptation for the Government: where they fear political controversy, they can simply declare the issue a matter of national significance and close down key opportunities for debate and challenge.
	At least the Secretary of State is elected, however. The scariest part of the Bill, which has rightly been condemned by Members of all parties—I have been encouraged by the number of Labour Members who have criticised this—is the unelected and unaccountable infrastructure planning commission. As I mentioned in an earlier intervention, its powers are extensive. It can pick and choose how to apply, modify or exclude provisions in other primary legislation. The list of that primary legislation is long: it includes the Green Belt (London and Home Counties) Act 1938, the Coast Protection Act 1949, the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979, the Harbours Act 1964, the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990—indeed, the list of legislation within the reach of this essentially unaccountable body goes on and on. It can also repeal or revoke local Acts that are also, in their own way, primary legislation. Let us consider the basis on which that drastic power can be exercised. Clause 105(6)(b) makes that clear—it is when it appears
	"to the decision-maker to be necessary or expedient".
	That is not a very high test. It is also unclear if the infrastructure planning commission will actually be accountable at all to Parliament, or even to a Minister, on individual decisions. I entirely support the earlier remarks of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts) who was concerned about the ultimate unaccountability of the body. That is an alarming prospect, and the commission should be either removed from the Bill altogether or reduced to the status of an advisory body to the Secretary of State.
	As many Members have said, the Bill is something of an invitation to non-violent direct action, as people might feel so excluded from the process that they consider the only ethical option open to them to be to protest and have their objections heard, especially as in environmental terms the Bill also offers many grounds for concern. The Bill could lay the foundations for a hugely damaging set of policies that deserve to be thoroughly challenged, from transport strategies that could foster increasing car and plane use to a new generation of nuclear power stations that could leave a poisonous legacy to our descendents.
	Organisations such as the Campaign to Protect Rural England have pointed out further weaknesses in the detail of the Bill. The sustainability appraisals required for each national policy statement are unspecific in their quality and depth. The CPRE suggests that they should be in accordance with the EU strategic environmental assessment directive, but there is no evidence of such rigour in the Bill at present.
	If all that were not concerning enough, the Bill may not even achieve the Government's more worthy objectives. They want to speed up the planning process, but as the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) eloquently said in relation to terminal 5, delays on major projects are often due to delays at ministerial level, poor developer applications or even funding issues.
	The Secretary of State's opening remarks made reference to the cost savings that the Bill is designed to achieve, but most of those are not in government. The cost savings that she identified seem to derive from shorter time scales putting a smaller burden on the private sector. Such savings do not derive from the changes in the Bill and could be achieved, for instance, by providing the Planning Inspectorate with much better resources to speed up the current process. The savings to Government will be largely offset by the costs of setting up and running the infrastructure planning commission. The Government's impact assessment estimates those to be £5 million to set it up and £9 million a year to run it.
	The Bill looks expensive, ineffective and, above all, undemocratic. Perhaps the Minister will be able to answer its final mystery. What exactly is it about the Town and Country Planning (Major Infrastructure Project Inquiries Procedure) (England) Rules 2005 that is so inadequate? Only two years ago, the Government produced those procedures, which were supposed to strike a fair balance between a full exploration of the various issues involved and providing the necessary speed for major infrastructure projects. They allowed for cross-examination, and for it to be limited in some cases, so they went some way towards allaying the Government's fears about the process running out of control. If the Government are to insist on forcing through this Bill, which is proving unpopular on both sides of the House, they must explain why only two years ago they got their proposals so badly wrong.

Jacqui Lait: I declare an interest, given that the regional development agencies have been mentioned: my husband is the deputy chairman of the South East England Development Agency— [ Interruption. ] He is working hard to ensure that not too much socialist legislation gets through.
	We have had a very good debate. The number of people in the Chamber is no reflection of the quality of the contributions that we have heard, and I congratulate everyone who took part. I especially congratulate the last two contributors on their speedy thinking processes. However, I do not think that we have heard one single contribution that has given wholehearted support to the Bill. I thought that it might be easier if we tried to decide what we could agree on before moving on to the difficulties with the Bill that many hon. Members have raised, and the aspects of the Bill on which we will need answers from the Government so that we can give it proper and due thought.
	I hope we can agree that the planning system is generally regarded as both slow and expensive. The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) made an excellent and understanding speech in which we heard about the horrors of the T5 inquiry. Yes, the situation was made worse by the fact that the applicants were not as organised as they should have been. The process was described as being like watching paint dry, and we must remember that the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), when he was Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, added a whole year to the planning inquiry's length because he declared halfway through it that no more motorways would be approved, and of course T5 depended on a motorway. However, we cannot hand out plaudits or blame for the situation to any one party.
	The idea of the national planning statement is thus broadly welcomed across the spectrum, as is the reform of section 106, which, as many hon. Members have said, is contributing to several delays in the planning system. Local planning gains from development need to be more transparent. It is encouraging that the Bill insists that developers should consult before application. As several hon. Members have said, a problem comes when consultation does not necessarily mean that there is negotiation and the resolution of problems. A consultation is just about as good as the responses that come back. We would prefer developments to be amended as a result of consultation before an application. Much of a single development consent regime is to be recommended, and I do not think that that issue has been raised by anyone else.
	A number of hon. Members talked about permitted development rights. In particular, my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) mentioned that there are ways, other than through permitted development rights, in which we could achieve the same result of reducing the work load of local planning departments. That would give them more time to enforce planning approvals that have been given, and to work with local communities on local approved developments that people want.
	However—there is always a "however" or a "but"—as practically everybody has mentioned, we have serious concerns about the creation of the infrastructure planning commission. First, it has been tried before. Those with long memories may remember the Secretary of State mentioning an earlier planning Act this afternoon. In the Town and Country Planning Act 1968, there was a similar provision, but the then right hon. Member for Stepney, Peter Shore, scuppered it when he pointed out that it would not work because of the lack of local input. That sounds familiar. The idea was tried again in 1990 but the measure was never used. The idea of an independent commission that considers major infrastructure developments is not new, but it has never been made to work.
	Many Members are concerned that the proposed commission is a classic move on the part of the Government: they want to abrogate responsibility and accountability for their actions. In this case, they are shoving off their decision-making powers for large projects to the commission, an unelected body whose members are beholden to those who appoint them, and from whom they seek reappointment—that is, Ministers. That hardly makes them independent. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal said, they are placemen. My hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Prisk) analysed the problem effectively and in great detail.
	Who will the commissioners be? We have had suggestions today, but the Government have a little list. In addition, we know that the CBI wants commissioners to have legal, environmental or planning experience, or possibly all three. The Local Government Association wants people who have political and managerial experience in local government, which is understandable. The Planning Disaster coalition wants environmentalists, and the railways want railway engineers. According to a memo leaked to the  Financial Times, the Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform wants nuclear engineers among the commissioners. If I were a member of the Planning Inspectorate, I would not be happy that all my years of experience were not valued. Where do they come into the new system?
	How many commissioners will we need? My hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend, East (James Duddridge) analysed the issue and pointed out that the Government are planning to have 30 commissioners. Interestingly, according to the Government's White Paper, they expected only five to 10 projects a year. During the summer, it emerged that perhaps they should revise their figures upwards to about 30 projects, and today the Secretary of State said that the figure was 45. I am not a mathematician, but if there is an average of three commissioners on each of those 45 inquiries, 135 commissioners will be required. There is a time limit of, I think, eight months, which is two thirds of a year. Two thirds of 135 is roughly 85. The figures on the number of commissioners that we need and their cost are already way out of line with the Government's original cost proposals.

Jacqui Lait: My hon. Friend points out succinctly many of the problems present in the Bill, of which the issue of Select Committees is just one.
	We hope that the Government can come up with a successful and acceptable process through which Parliament can be involved, but we have to ensure, as we have said all the way through, that local people can make their points of view known to the Committees. It is pretty daunting, as well as expensive, to come to Parliament, but it can be a question of someone's whole life. Will they have the right to be heard properly, or just the opportunity to write in with their evidence? The hon. Member for Pudsey (Mr. Truswell) described that proposal as vague.
	I thought that the single development consent regime was one of the more sensible suggestions, but I have a question about it. Under the Bill, the single consent regime will work in parallel with the other legislation. The Government are not proposing to repeal the elements of planning within other pieces of legislation. Why not? Why will there be a parallel regime that could undermine and subvert what the Government are trying to do?
	Many hon. Members have mentioned the proposal that current planning strategies, such as that on air transport, should become a new NPS without any further debate. The point has been made regularly that as it stands, the air transport strategy does not meet the requirements of the strategic environment assessment or the habitats directive. If that is what the Government propose to do, legal challenges will surely follow.
	I was interested to hear the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Hywel Williams) mention cross-border infrastructure. Either the Government are trying quietly to cede their reserve power over energy to Scotland and Wales, or they have not realised the impact of what they are doing.
	Finally, strategies need to be continually updated. Many hon. Members have talked about climate change. Everybody will know how speedily the technology dealing with climate change and energy production is changing. If strategies are set in stone, the Government will have to revise them when a new proposal using a new technology is introduced. I hope that when we get to Committee, we will agree to continuous updating of those strategies.

John Healey: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait), although the last two minutes of her speech were entirely disconnected from the preceding 21 minutes. Perhaps a combination of drafters were at work. Nevertheless, I welcome her contribution and the 21 others. We have held the fullest possible debate in the time available. That is only proper for such a significant Bill. We have heard some expert and experienced views from both sides of the House, and I hope that we can tempt some of the hon. Members who expressed them on to the Committee so that we can continue our well-informed debate.
	Along with the Climate Change Bill, the energy Bill and the Housing and Regeneration Bill, the Planning Bill will help equip the country to face some of the major challenges of today and the coming decades. We need a system that will help us as a country tackle such major challenges as how we do more than our share to deal with climate change; how we ensure a secure, sustainable and clean water supply and a clean and secure energy supply for the long term; and how we maintain and develop a national and indeed international transport system that meets the demands of the future.
	How do we take on the economic competition that is intensifying from other countries? In doing that, how do we strike the right balance between the social, environmental and economic interests that inevitably play a part? That balance is central to a sound planning system. My right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford), the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Keith Hill), who are all former Ministers with great experience in the subject, recognised that that is a fact of planning life and that, in the end, national interests are more than simply the sum of local interests, important though they are.
	Let me deal with point made by the right hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar—

John Healey: I have explained that the purpose of the levy is to help fund the infrastructure that is widely recognised as being needed to support developments that we all wish to see. That is the purpose of the levy. It will be accompanied by a negotiated agreement—the section 106 agreement—which will continue to cover affordable housing on specific sites. The levy will sit alongside section 106 agreements. My hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham is right that local authorities should be doing more. By the sounds of it, her authority should be doing more to secure more affordable housing and strike better section 106 deals.

Queen's recommendation having been signified—
	 Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 52(1)(a) (Money resolutions and ways and means resolutions in connection with bills),
	That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Planning Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—
	(1) any expenditure incurred under or by virtue of the Act by the Secretary of State, and
	(2) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable out of money so provided under or by virtue of any other Act.— [ Liz Blackman. ]
	 Question agreed to.

OLYMPICS AND THE NORTH EAST

Ashok Kumar: May I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for granting me this debate, which is important for Teesside and the north generally?
	I am delighted that my right hon. Friend the Minister for the North East will respond to the debate. This is groundbreaking, in parliamentary terms, because it is the first time that a regional Minister will respond to a debate on the Floor of the House. I have known my right hon. Friend for many years and I admire and respect him immensely. This is the first time that he will be responding to one of my debates. I was delighted when my right hon. Friend was appointed Minister for the North East. He has been going round the whole region, and he is a champion of our area.
	A crucial part of the role of the regional Ministers is to ensure that their regions benefit from the 2012 Olympics. When it was announced on 6 July 2006 that the 2012 Olympics would be hosted by London, it was a proud day for the whole country. It will be the first time that the games have been hosted in Britain since 1948. The decision was testimony to the hard work of all the London 2012 team and the Government.
	Although the games will be held in London, I strongly feel that we should strive to make the 2012 Olympics benefit the country as a whole. In some regions, there is a feeling that despite the public money being spent, the benefits of the Olympics will be limited to London, but I should like to challenge that notion. The north-south divide is still a real concept in the eyes of many people across the country, and to many of my constituents. We must ensure that rather than enhancing the perception of that divide, the 2012 Olympics attempts to bridge the gap and unite the nation. The London 2012 Olympic games present us with a host of challenges and opportunities across the country; that is why I called for this debate.
	I shall highlight four ways in which the north-east region, and Teesside in particular, could benefit from the Olympics. First, I will highlight the efforts being made by One NorthEast and Sport England through a regional forum to maximise the benefits of the Olympics to the region. I will talk about the bid to host a pre-event training camp. That would be a huge economic boost for the region and would leave a lasting cultural legacy. Secondly, I will briefly outline the business opportunities presented by the 2012 Olympics in key sectors such as construction. Then I will highlight the great potential that hosting the 2012 games has for galvanising interest in sport among young people. That opportunity should not be missed, given the recent concern about public health issues such as obesity. Finally, on a more important point, I will talk about skateboarding as an Olympic sport for 2012; skateboarding events could ideally be hosted in Middlesbrough.
	First, as I mentioned, and as my right hon. Friend will be aware, a regional forum has been set up to deliver a regional plan for the 2012 games. The plan focuses on themes, and actions will be led by Sport England and the regional development agency, One NorthEast. One NorthEast will take the lead on the following themes: business, tourism and image, culture, and skills and volunteering. Sport England will take the lead on facilities, performance sport, children and young people, and health. All those areas are crucial, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will liaise with the regional forum to ensure that progress is made in each one. I hope that he can provide a link between the regional forum and the Government, in particular the Minister for the Olympics.
	One of the most significant opportunities for the north-east region is the chance to be host to competing nations, allowing athletes to get used to our climate and use local facilities in the months, or even years, prior to the event in 2012. There will be a final holding camp for teams a few weeks before the official start date of the games.
	The London Organising Committee of the Olympic Games will publish and distribute a guide detailing the UK's available training facilities at the Beijing games. Twenty proposals from the north-east were submitted on 1 May 2007. Sport England and One NorthEast met the Olympics officials in London on 2 May 2007 to discuss each of the facilities. The meeting was positive and no concerns were raised by officials. Since May 2007, LOCOG has been contacted several times to establish whether it has any concerns regarding the region's facilities. No concerns have been identified so far, but it is uncertain whether Olympic officials will visit the north-east to inspect the region's facilities. The time line for the announcement of which facilities will appear in the guide is January 2008. Will my right hon. Friend encourage Olympic officials to visit the north-east to secure a recommendation for the region in the Olympic guide? That could be a huge boost for the region, as I am sure he will agree. In addition, the athletes would be able to benefit from visiting great towns and cities such as Middlesbrough and Newcastle. They would also have the opportunity to visit the beautiful countryside that covers Redcar and Cleveland, not to mention the picturesque coastline, which was featured in the blockbuster film, "Atonement".
	My second point concerns another significant potential benefit for the region—the business opportunities offered by the 2012 Olympics. It is expected that the event will provide a multi-million-pound boost to business in the north-east, particularly given our expertise in key sectors. The One NorthEast business team has developed a strategy to help regional companies to bid for London 2012-related procurement opportunities. That strategy includes raising awareness of available opportunities, helping companies to ensure that they have the necessary skills to bid for tendering opportunities, and building regional partnerships and networks. One NorthEast has been delivering masterclasses, one-to-one advice sessions and seminars on London 2012 opportunities. It has also been in discussions with LOCOG, the Olympic Delivery Authority and the London Development Agency regarding the electronic brokerage service, which will provide unprecedented access to London 2012 business opportunities for small and medium-sized enterprises. Will my right hon. Friend work closely with the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform to ensure that those programmes are given Government support?
	My third point is that perhaps the most enduring legacy that the Olympics have the potential to leave throughout the whole country is the generation of a greater interest in sport. That could be particularly powerful in our schools, where public health problems such as obesity are becoming more common. Legacy Trust UK was launched with £40 million of funding, mainly to use the 2012 games to promote culture and sport among young people. I am pleased that £1.53 million has been channelled directly into projects that encourage participation in culture, sport and well-being.
	My fourth and final point concerns the prospect of skateboarding being an Olympic sport for the 2012 games. I am not sure whether my right hon. Friend knows a great deal about the sport or has ever participated in it—I certainly have not—but it is one of the fastest-growing sports in the world, with about 600,000 regular participants in Britain. In the United States, France and the Scandinavian countries, it is part of the curriculum. Discussions are under way about the prospect of skateboarding making its Olympic debut at the 2012 games. There are some 600 skate parks in Britain, about 100 of which are in London. In November 2005, I had the pleasure of opening Prissick skate plaza in Middlesbrough, which is one of the country's biggest and most impressive facilities. That plaza could be used in the 2012 games, which represents a real opportunity for the region, particularly Middlesbrough. Perhaps my right hon. Friend could use his good offices to put forward the case for it to be used for training purposes and, if possible, for the competition itself.
	Newcastle United's stadium, St. James' Park, which my right hon. Friend attends, is being used for some of the football matches, and I am slightly disappointed that Middlesbrough FC's stadium, the Riverside, is not being used. One concern that has been raised with me is that so many Government Departments are involved with the legacy of the Olympics that there may be a lack of co-ordination. Will he pass on that concern to ensure that we have cross-departmental co-operation and thus clarity with national initiatives, particularly as regards finance? Ensuring that their region takes advantage of the opportunities the 2012 Olympics will bring is a crucial role for regional Ministers. I am confident that in my right hon. Friend we have the best possible champion for the north-east.
	In conclusion, I ask my right hon. Friend to work closely with One NorthEast, Sport England and the regional forum in delivering the regional strategy. Will he try to send a delegation of Olympic officials to the region so that they can see for themselves the facilities that we have? Hopefully, that will secure a recommendation for the region in the Olympic guide. If skateboarding becomes an Olympic sport, will he make every effort to put forward the case for Middlesbrough skate park to be used in the 2012 games? The 2012 Olympics will be a momentous time for the whole country, and I am confident that the north-east can take full advantage of the opportunities that they will present. In addition, I sincerely hope that the British 2012 team will be full of top athletes from the north-east region.

Nick Brown: Mr. Speaker, you are presiding, Sir, over what I think is a pioneering parliamentary event. I believe that I am the first of the newly appointed regional Ministers to come to the Dispatch Box and respond to a debate under that portfolio. I am also responding under that of my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Olympics.
	I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, South and East Cleveland (Dr. Kumar) for his kind words about the ministerial office that I hold, and I can tell the House that we have been political friends and allies for a very long time. He has been a champion for the community that he represents, as his securing of the debate, and his contribution to it, shows. My right hon. Friend the Minister for the Olympics had hoped to attend the debate, but she is metaphorically "Over the hills and far away"—no doubt "Out on the tiles"—so that leaves me to say to my hon. Friend, "Your time is gonna come". Through "Good times, bad times", my hon. Friend has been a champion for Middlesbrough and for Cleveland. Indeed, in securing today's Adjournment debate and drawing attention to the Olympics—an event that is an opportunity to bring economic, social and cultural benefits to the north-east of England and Middlesbrough, and right across the UK—he has shown a determination and commitment to stand up for the communities that he represents as an MP, and that I represent as regional Minister.
	The Government and the London Organising Committee for the Olympic games are working hard to ensure that the benefits of the games reach across the UK. One of the main formal mechanisms for achieving that is the nations and regions group to which my hon. Friend referred. The group is chaired by Charles Allen, and it works to optimise the benefits from the 2012 games to the three nations and nine English regions of the UK. Each of those nations and regions has a senior representative in the group. Also, each nation and region has a 2012 co-ordinator who works full time on maintaining strong links with the region and others working on the games.
	Obviously, the primary purpose of the games is sport. We want to stimulate interest in sport throughout the world, and nowhere more so than in the host nation. I am really grateful to my hon. Friend for what he said about the achievement of winning the games for the UK and London. They are something in which the whole country can participate and take pride. There are, of course, the added benefits of tourism, culture and business, as he appreciates. A business opportunities network has been created, which will do three things that I hope will be of some reassurance to him. It will offer information about the 2012 contracts through an e-tendering alert service and an electronic brokerage service. It will offer support and guidance through Business Link, and as he knows, Business Link in the north-east has, through its chief executive, already got a connection with Middlesbrough. It is a good organisation, which serves us well. The network will also provide events and engagements. There will be a range of regional and national industry events, which are opportunities to meet the buyer, so that those who wish to submit tenders can interface with those to whom they apply.
	There will be pre-games training camps. In preparing for the debate, I had a chance to discuss those matters with my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Olympics and she assures me that, although decisions will not be made until January and afterwards, there are bids in, as my hon. Friend said, from the north-east, and the people assembling and evaluating the different bids are impressed with those from the north-east of England.
	The run-up to the games will be an opportunity for volunteering. Approximately 70,000 games time volunteers are needed from throughout the country and I hope, as does my hon. Friend, that some of them will come from the north-east.
	Let me to deal with my hon. Friend's specific points. I cannot say more about the training camp proposals except that the submissions are highly regarded and that, as Minister for the region, I will do my best with him to champion its case. My hon. Friend asked whether the Olympics committee had visited the north-east to examine the facilities that are available in our region. The answer is yes. As he probably recalls, the Olympic roadshow came to Middlesbrough on 4 July for the festival of sport activities. However, I am not sure whether that qualifies as inspecting the facilities. He made his point, which was reasonable, well, and I will join him in my capacity as regional Minister to ensure that it is properly made to the Government. When decisions are for the London Organising Committee, not specifically for the Department, it is nevertheless right to make the representations that my hon. Friend has made so that they can be tackled supportively and appropriately.
	My hon. Friend referred to skateboarding. As I understand it, the International Olympic Committee is looking to reduce, not increase the number of sports that the Olympic games cover. However, as I understand the current position, things may have changed by 2012, not least with the growing enthusiasm for and popularity of the sport of skateboarding. I welcome the new, world-class stadium that was built in Middlesbrough. If there were to be a centre for the sport, Middlesbrough would be a good candidate. Again, should circumstances change, or should there be other events that could take place in Middlesbrough, I will stand alongside my hon. Friend to champion that cause.
	My hon. Friend said that he feared a "Communications breakdown" in tackling interdepartmental co-ordination. Elaborate arrangements are in place to ensure that that does not happen. Time is moving on and it is not possible in such a debate to elaborate on all the arrangements. However, if it will satisfy my hon. Friend, I will write to him from my comprehensive briefing on the subject, and set out the arrangements that are currently in place. If he feels that there are any shortcomings and that our region or a specific aspect of our nation's public life is not represented, I promise to take that up directly with those who deal with the co-ordinating arrangements.
	Let me conclude this useful, important and, in one way, pathfinding debate with a quote from the pop group Led Zeppelin:
	"Many dreams come true and some have silver linings
	I live for my dream and a pocketful of gold."
	I hope that that contents my hon. Friend.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Adjourned accordingly at one minute to Eleven o'clock.